Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
www.newenglandfoodpolicy.org
American Farmland Trust
this report is supported by a grant from
the Henry P. Kendall Foundation Conservation Law Foundation
Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
New England Food Policy:
Building a Sustainable Food System
March 2014
www.newenglandfoodpolicy.org
PRIMARY AUTHORS
© 2014 American Farmland Trust, Conservation Law Foundation, Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
ii
AC K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
The primary authors give thanks and appreciation to the following individuals
for their contributions to this report.
Interviewees
Ken Ayars; Al Bettencourt; Rich Bonanno; Emily Broad Leib; Sarah Church; John Harker;
Rob Johnson; Mary Jordan; Kip Kolesinskas; Phil Korman; Chelsea Lewis; Jane Malme; Jiff Martin;
Lorraine Merrill; Brad Mitchell; Abbie Nelson; Alison Nihart; Roger Noonan; Martha Page; Ned Porter;
Steve Reviczky; Michael Snyder; Henry Talmage; and John Waite.
Reviewers
These individuals reviewed aspects of the report or provided clarity or additional information:
Chris Ausura; Ken Ayars; Rich Bonanno; Courtney Bourns; Emily Broad Leib; Sheila Brush;
Joanne Burke; Bonnie Burr; Erica Campbell; Kimberly Clark; Alli Condra; Jennifer Dempsey;
Joseph Dippel; Niaz Dorry; Kelly Erwin; Julia Freedgood; John Harker; Simca Horwitz; Dana Hudson;
Betsy Johnson; Mary Jordan; Kip Kolesinskas; Phil Korman; Ben Kurtzman; Mark Lapping;
Chelsea Lewis; Michal Lumsden; Jane Malme; Margaret McCabe; Lorraine Merrill; Steven Munno;
Abbie Nelson; Roger Noonan; Ken Payne; Nicole Pollock; Ned Porter; Steve Reviczky; Karen Spiller;
Kevin Sullivan; Henry Talmage; Bob Wagner; and Abbey Willard.
Chapter 1: Land 1
1.1 Reducing Farmland Conversion 2
Current Use Property Tax Valuation 2
State and Federal Estate Taxes 5
Planning and Land Use 7
Farmland Mitigation 10
1.2 Increasing Permanent Protection 13
1.3 Expanding Land Access 17
Urban Agriculture: Zoning 17
Urban Agriculture: Soil Contamination 18
Farm Linking Programs 19
Land Leasing: Beginning Farmer Tax Credit 20
Land Leasing: Public Lands 21
Financing Land Acquisition 23
1.4 Increasing Available Farmland 25
Agricultural Land Restoration 25
Endnotes 27
iv
Chapter 3: Food Safety, Processing, Aggregation and Distribution 69
Overview of Food Safety Policy 69
3.1 Produce 71
3.2 Dairy 76
3.3 Meat and Poultry 78
3.4 Seafood 81
Endnotes 85
Chapter 4: Markets 91
4.1 Branding and Market Promotion and Development Programs 92
4.2 Purchasing and Procurement Preferences 97
4.3 Retail Markets 101
4.4 Institutional Markets 107
Endnotes 112
Conclusion 137
Appendix 140
vi
AC R O N Y M G U I D E
P R O J E C T A N D R E P O R T B AC KG R O U N D
This report contributes to efforts across New England to promote a more regionally focused, healthier,
economically vibrant, resilient, just and environmentally sustainable food system for New England. It
reflects the collaborative work of three partners: American Farmland Trust (AFT); Conservation Law
Foundation (CLF); and Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (NESAWG). As co-leaders
of a two-year New England regional food system policy project, AFT, CLF and NESAWG analyzed
policy barriers and gaps around increasing production and consumption of New England-sourced
food consistent with the New England Food Vision. This analysis, along with policy suggestions,
is presented here. It constitutes the first phase of the project. Its purpose is to provide groups and
advocates with information, support and inspiration to promote local, state, regional and federal
policy changes that could have the most significant impact on expanding production, strengthening
food supply chains and enhancing multistate cooperation toward a more robust and resilient regional
food system.
The report is intended as a tool to guide citizens, organizations, coalitions, agencies and policymak-
ers to pursue supportive public policies and remove policy barriers. It focuses on public policy issues
in five areas:
»» Food Production
»» Markets
»» Waste Streams
Our analysis is based on research conducted by AFT and CLF staff, with input from interviews with
regional leaders and numerous stakeholders. In each area, the authors present a scan of the policy
landscape. Each section identifies key public policy barriers and gaps at the state level, with refer-
ence to federal policy obstacles that affect our region. Sections also highlight supportive state and
federal programs and policies. We note that this report was researched, written and finalized before
the 2014 Farm Bill was passed; references in our analysis to the “next farm bill” should be read with
the understanding that the 2014 Farm Bill was passed while this report was in final production.
Similarly, the 2012 Census of Agriculture was released while this report was in final production.
We also conducted a scan of regional models for states working together to achieve shared goals.
Some examples are drawn from within food systems. Some models come from other regions of the
United States. Each model is potentially useful depending on the problem being addressed. The
purpose of this unique research is to suggest additional ways that New England states could most
effectively cooperate on strengthening our region’s food system.
In each of the five sections, the authors present policy suggestions to address the identified barriers
and gaps. We focus on state-level policy but also draw attention to federal policy challenges where
these surfaced. This discussion is broken into three areas, though not every subsection contains sug-
gestions in each area:
C U R R E N T U S E P R O P E R T Y TA X VA L U AT I O N
• Analyze current use enrollment data at the state level to help policymakers evaluate program
effectiveness.
• Gather and analyze feedback from landowners, assessors and municipal planning officials to
assess the impact of current use programs on development patterns.
• Examine the impact of Massachusetts’ right of first refusal policy to determine its effectiveness in
helping towns protect farmland.
• Explore current use programs as a potential policy vehicle to expand farmland access.
Policy Options
• Allow municipalities to retain recapture penalties and direct them toward municipal farmland
protection projects.
• Incorporate a right of first refusal into the program, allowing a town to purchase a farm parcel or
assign the purchase to a land trust in the event the parcel is being developed.
• Through current use programs, encourage farming in urban and suburban areas and encourage
more secure tenure for farmers leasing land.
x
• Provide towns with additional property tax tools to protect farmland, as Maine’s Voluntary
Municipal Farm Support Program does.
• Consider changes to current use statutes to incentivize additional leasing to farmers and longer
lease terms.
S TAT E A N D F E D E R A L E S TAT E TA X E S
• Analyze how changes proposed in the Family Farm Estate Tax Relief Act of 2010 (H.R. 5475)
would impact New England farms.
• Explore the connection between and opportunities for synchronizing state current use provisions
for property taxes and federal and state estate tax provisions relating to special use valuation
assessment.
Policy Options
Federal
• Revise the special use valuation assessment to incentivize keeping agricultural land in production.
State
• Consider special provisions for farms under the state estate tax, including provisions to exempt
agricultural assets from estate taxes.
• Maintain support for the federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities program, which pro-
vides funding for regional planning around food systems, including agricultural land use.
• Continue providing communities with financial and technical assistance to help them develop
plans and zoning regulations that encourage smart growth, support farming and protect farmland.
Policy Options
• Require all local and regional plans to incorporate smart growth techniques, and require that local
zoning conform to state and local comprehensive plans.
• Use technology such as GIS mapping and extrapolation software to demonstrate the effects on
agriculture of current and past planning strategies, and to show the impacts of potential future
policies.
• Amend state zoning laws to permit plant agriculture in all zoning districts, in order to encourage
better use of agricultural land.
• Incentivize municipalities to designate growth areas that can support increased development
density.
• Explore creation of sub-state regional transfer of development rights programs, and needed
state-level enabling legislation, or possible incentives to promote such programs.
Policy Options
Federal
»» Requiring federal agencies to alter projects to avoid or minimize farmland conversion where
possible; projects could be held to a “no feasible alternative” test.
»» Covering agricultural farm parcels that are in urbanized areas or consist of fewer than 10 acres
of land.
»» Mitigating conversion when farmland is developed with funding from federal agencies.
»» Creating additional opportunities for the public and key stakeholders to review and challenge
decisions.
• Strengthen the role of U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) by:
»» Granting that agency the authority to determine whether a site contains farmland and is
therefore subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
»» Providing NRCS with greater authority in the final review process and decision.
»» Mandating reporting by agencies to NRCS and the public; create measures to evaluate
effectiveness of the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
State
• States that have not done so should consider implementing a strong farmland mitigation policy
that achieves the following:
»» State funds and federal funds administered by state agencies should not be used for the con-
version of agricultural land to other uses when feasible alternatives are available.
»» Any project proposed by a municipality, nonprofit or private party that requires state approval,
permit or assistance should be reviewed by the state to determine if agricultural land will be
converted to nonagricultural use.
~~ The conversion of agricultural land to other uses should not be allowed when feasible alter-
natives are available.
• Continue and expand funding for the federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, which is
an important source of matching funds for state and local farmland protection efforts.
xii
• Increase funding for the region’s state Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements (PACE)
programs, several of which are not meeting demand.
• Reauthorize the enhanced federal tax incentive for conservation easement donations.
• Model future land use trends and land use needs for agriculture, especially in light of climate change.
• Analyze how effective the Massachusetts refundable conservation tax credit is in protecting farmland.
Policy Options
Federal
• Funding for federal farmland protection should be significantly expanded and used to leverage
additional state funding.
• Administer the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program in a way that recognizes the long-
standing expertise of state PACE programs in protecting farmland, and defers to state programs
on easement terms and conditions.
• Find ways to permanently protect productive farmland now in sod and turf production, as well as
currently forested land on prime farmland soils.
State
• Adopt mechanisms like Massachusetts’s Community Preservation Act that enable and incentivize
communities to help finance farmland protection efforts.
• Provide additional funding for the long-term monitoring and enforcement of agricultural conser-
vation easements; consider creating a dedicated trust fund for this purpose.
• Consider adopting an Option to Purchase at Agricultural Value (OPAV) in PACE programs to keep
farmland affordable for both established and new farmers.
• Encourage greater communication among state land conservation agencies, farmers and land
trusts to foster better understanding of easement terms and conditions, as well as how they affect
farm viability.
U R B A N AG R I C U LT U R E : Z O N I N G
Policy Options
• Examine whether state laws can be amended to prohibit local zoning regulations from unneces-
sarily hampering the expansion of urban agriculture.
• Reduce local regulatory barriers by making zoning ordinances less restrictive or ambiguous
toward urban agriculture:
»» Use interim zoning if immediate zoning relief is necessary while a more comprehensive reform
effort is underway.
• Provide frequent opportunity during policy development processes for community input and
education around public health concerns related to urban soil contamination.
U R B A N AG R I C U LT U R E : S O I L C O N TA M I N AT I O N
• Encourage and make routine the implementation of best management practices for growing in
soils that are not contaminated by legal standards, but may still have background levels of con-
taminants that pose public health threats.
Policy Options
• Update soil contamination laws and programs to anticipate agriculture as a future land use for
remediated properties.
FA R M L I N K I N G P R O G R A M S
• Reauthorize and fully fund the federal Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program in
the next farm bill, as the program has provided important resources for organizations and agen-
cies providing services to new and beginning farmers in New England.
• Help support farm linking services with resources directed to state or private sector programs.
LAND LEASING
• Analyze a state-level beginning farmer tax credit linked to property taxes to understand its poten-
tial impact and benefits.
• As urban land may not be enrolled in or be eligible for a state’s current use property tax program,
states should consider a per-acre and per-credit cap to enable all eligible landowners to partici-
pate, regardless of the amount of property tax they pay.
• States that have not yet done so should inventory state-owned lands to determine their suitability
for agricultural production.
• Encourage dialogue between state and federal natural resources agencies, state agriculture agen-
cies and farmers to address management concerns around leasing public land for agriculture.
• Analyze the potential for using state-owned forestland for silvopasture and the cultivation of
agricultural products.
Policy Options
• Encourage state conservation agencies to incorporate agricultural production into their land
management strategies, where feasible and appropriate to do so.
• Consider strategies to improve tenure security, such as longer or rolling lease terms and ground leases.
xiv
F I N A N C I N G L A N D AC Q U I S I T I O N S
• Survey new and beginning farmers in the region to determine their interest in and ability to invest
in individual development accounts.
• Research the region’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) loan and land portfolios to determine the
amount of land currently in the agency’s inventory and the amount of land the agency has fore-
closed on within the past five years.
Policy Options
Federal
• Appropriate funding for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Accounts
and include at least one New England state in the pilot program.
• Lift the restriction on future subdivisions of protected farms from the Farm and Ranch Lands
Protection Program to allow appropriate subdivision of large farms into smaller farm parcels in
order to provide access to land for new and beginning farmers.
• Require the Farm Service Agency to permanently protect farmland on which it forecloses, and to
sell the land with an OPAV provision attached.
State
• The Land Access Project has a series of recommendations aimed at making farmland more afford-
able for new and beginning farmers, including:
»» Include the Option to Purchase at Agricultural Value in all state PACE programs to keep farm-
land affordable.
»» Lift the restriction on future subdivisions of protected farms to allow appropriate subdivision
of large farms into smaller farm parcels in order to provide access to land for new and begin-
ning farmers.
»» Develop entirely new offerings within existing PACE programs and gear them specifically to
new and beginning farmers.
• Consider expanding existing state individual development account programs, or establish new
programs in those states without one, to specifically include the purchase of farmland as an
authorized use; increase the annual cap on participant savings that can be matched.
• Conduct more research on the potential carbon impacts of conversion of forestland to agricul-
ture, and on ways to minimize those impacts.
• Create a regional inventory of land that was once in agriculture and is now inactive or under forest
cover.
• Conduct an analysis of the Connecticut Farmland Restoration Program to assess its effectiveness
in increasing agricultural production and its impact on the environment.
• Encourage federal cost-share assistance for silvopasture practices through the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Stewardship Program, and analyze effectiveness of
practices for food production.
• At the state level, consider the priorities of current forestland protection programs to see if they
might be expanded or modified to focus on the protection of prime and important agricultural soils.
FA R M L A B O R A N D W O R K F O R C E D E V E L O P M E N T
• Investigate the Fair Labor Standard Act’s definition of agriculture and whether it allows the type of
collaborative processing and marketing practices that are increasingly common in New England.
(Harvard Law School’s Food Law and Policy Clinic is currently analyzing this issue, and will have
recommendations in 2014 that may prove valuable to federal lawmakers.)
• Where states have not done so already, undertake a comprehensive assessment of state food
system workforce needs.
• Consider convening a regional conference around food and agriculture workforce development
to encourage cross-state collaborations such as multistate training programs.
Policy Options
• Enact a new federal agricultural guest-worker program such as was included in S. 744, the Senate-
passed immigration reform legislation.
B E G I N N I N G FA R M E R S A N D N E W FA R M A N D F O O D E N T E R P R I S E S
• Renew and increase funding for the USDA Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program
in the next farm bill.
State
• Promote state-supported business planning programs, including state farm viability programs,
which are fostering new farm and food enterprises.
• Develop more rigorous data and evaluation on the impact and effectiveness for beginning farm-
ers of state business planning and farm viability programs, to build broader and deeper support
for these programs from state lawmakers.
xvi
• Research the need for and potential cost of a state Aggie Bond beginning farmer loan program
or program similar to the Maine Agricultural Marketing Loan Fund for new and beginning farmers.
Policy Options
Federal
• Reduce the experience requirement for the Farm Service Agency’s direct farm-ownership loans
to two years, and give FSA authority to increase the loan limits for direct farm-ownership loans in
areas of the country with higher real estate prices.
• Employ specially trained FSA agents to assist young and beginning farmers in each county office,
or specialists serving multiple offices in a region.
State
• Consider creating an Aggie Bond program in each state to support new and beginning farmers, or
a broader Aggie Bond program in which beginning farmers could participate.
M A X I M I Z I N G E N V I R O N M E N TA L B E N E F I T S A N D M I N I M I Z I N G E N V I R O N M E N TA L
I M PAC T S F R O M AG R I C U LT U R E
• Maintain or increase funding for federal conservation programs that help the region’s farmers
comply with federal and state environmental regulations and encourage farmers, as well as farm
and forest landowners, to adopt conservation practices.
• Maintain or increase funding for federal Conservation Technical Assistance and farm bill program
technical assistance to enable the Natural Resources Conservation Service to meet demand from
farmers and landowners for conservation planning.
State
• Continue state conservation cost-share programs that are helping farmers leverage federal dollars.
• Support soil and water conservation districts, which play an important role in educating and
providing technical support to farmers and farmland owners about conservation programs and
practices.
• Analyze conservation cost-share programs’ effectiveness in meeting state and federal environmen-
tal objectives and the degree to which these programs have leveraged federal and private resources.
• Encourage state environmental regulatory agencies to work closely with state agriculture agen-
cies, NRCS, conservation districts and state farm organizations on agricultural environmental
impact concerns.
FA R M E N E R G Y N E E D S A N D O P P O R T U N I T I E S
• Maintain funding at levels adequate to meet demand for the Rural Energy Assistance and
Environmental Quality Incentives programs, both of which provide support for energy efficiency
and renewable energy projects.
State
• Maintain funding for state farm energy programs at levels adequate to meet demand.
• Consider convening state-based working groups to guide state farm energy programs and
improve coordination with USDA, state utilities and clean energy industry.
• Investigate policy mechanisms to align utility energy audit and efficiency programs, interconnec-
tion requirements and net metering regulations with farm needs.
Policy Options
• Encourage creating state-level farm energy programs in states without such programs.
• Consider funding state-level farm energy programs through systems benefit charges billed to
ratepayers or through state renewable energy funds.
• Consider creating an ombudsman in each state to help farm businesses identify and develop
applications for sources of grant funding.
• Consider further legislative and regulatory efforts to expand incentives for energy efficiency and
renewable energy projects that are specifically tailored to farm and food business applications,
and support deploying innovative technologies such as high-efficiency processing equipment
and anaerobic digesters.
AC C E S S T O WAT E R
• States that have not done so already may want to undertake a comprehensive planning process
to better understand their water resources.
• States should perform a baseline assessment of wetlands permitting programs, and convene
panels of farmers, environmentalists, agency officials and researchers for recommendations
related to the permitting process.
Policy Options
• States may want to consider enacting policies to allow for sustainable inter-basin water transfers.
xviii
2.3 BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND CHALLENGES
R E S E A R C H , D E V E LO P M E N T A N D E X T E N S I O N
• Continue federal and state investments in agricultural research and extension, which will prove
even more important in a changing and more volatile climate, and as growers are required
to comply with new production practices, record-keeping and tests through the Food Safety
Modernization Act.
• A number of smaller federal farm bill research programs, including the Specialty Crop Research
Initiative, the Organic Research and Education Initiative, and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Development Program, are valuable to the region but not mandatory programs. They need to be
reauthorized in a new farm bill or they will have no working budget.
Policy Options
• Put new emphasis on federal and state research around controlled-environment agriculture and
opportunities for year-round food production.
B U S I N E S S P L A N N I N G A N D A S S I S TA N C E
• Continue support for state farm viability and other business development programs, which have
been effective in fostering new agriculture business models and opportunities, and in leveraging
significant private investments in on-farm agricultural infrastructure.
• Measure indicators such as net farm profits and farm operator investments in expansion through
state farm business development program evaluations.
Policy Options
• The Vermont Working Lands Enterprise Fund offers an interesting model of state investment in
agricultural business and job creation, funding both individual farm operations and statewide
high-impact projects.
• The Massachusetts Agricultural Investment Program provides business planning and implemen-
tation grants to permanently protected farms that are not eligible for the state’s Farm Viability
program. Other states might consider similar investments in permanently protected farms.
R I S K M A N AG E M E N T
• Continue support for state-level programs providing income support for dairy farmers.
• Analyze the impact of state dairy programs on farm profitability in Connecticut and Massachusetts.
• Analyze the insurance needs of New England farmers, to inform the development of a workable
whole-farm-revenue insurance product for the region.
• Include the Dairy Market Stabilization Program in the final version of the next farm bill, as it is an
important component to the suite of federal dairy programs.
• Consider crop insurance provisions that encourage more coverage of specialty crops, including
funds allocated for education efforts in underserved regions and for specialty crop agents serving
specialty crops.
• Simplify the Adjusted Gross Revenue and Adjusted Gross Revenue-Lite revenue insurance prod-
ucts to encourage more participation among Northeast farmers.
3.1 PRODUCE
»» Farm viability and reinvestment programs in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island
and Vermont; and
• Analyze the cost of compliance with the Food Safety Modernization Act’s proposed Produce
Safety and Preventive Controls rules for various types of farm operations in the region.
• Determine the costs to New England states for implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act.
• Analyze private and philanthropic resources and the economic impact of federal and state invest-
ments in food aggregation, processing and distribution infrastructure.
• Continue to research food hub business models, especially those that can be self-supporting and
provide a fair return to farmers.
• Research whether the scale and management system of a produce operation affects the risk of
contaminating its product.
xx
Policy Options
• Continue to advocate for modifications to the proposed Food Safety Modernization Act’s Produce
Safety and Preventive Controls rules.
• Support the development of food aggregation centers for small- and medium-sized producers,
coordinated with an appropriately scaled distribution plan and network.
3.2 DAIRY
• Continue to provide business planning and grants for dairy farms to develop additional on- and
off-farm processing capacity.
• Analyze the economic impact of federal and state investments in dairy processing infrastructure.
Policy Options
• Build support for the federal and state programs that are investing in dairy processing infrastruc-
ture and technical assistance.
• Raise the cap on the dairy producer-handler exemption under the federal milk marketing order to
allow dairy producers to process more of their milk outside the federal milk market pool.
• Establish workforce development programs for dairy processing, or expand current state work-
force development efforts to include dairy processing.
• Improve access to information regarding the requirements for Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Points (HACCP) so that farmers and food entrepreneurs have the tools they need to
make informed decisions regarding expanded marketing opportunities and value-added process-
ing while promoting food safety.
• Analyze the success of state farm viability programs in leveraging state and federal investments
and improving the profit margins of slaughter and processing facilities.
• Explore the feasibility of on-farm slaughter facilities to process livestock from other farms.
Policy Options
• Develop a more workable plan than the Cooperative Interstate Shipment program to allow ship-
ment of meat across state lines.
• Develop state-funded, low-interest loan programs for capital improvements to new and existing
slaughterhouses. Such improvements could include the development of satellite processing sites
and additional on-site storage to maximize the facility’s kill-floor capacity.
• Provide business assistance to slaughter and processing plants, allowing them to improve their
services and overall profitability.
• Decrease the costs of slaughterhouse and processing operations; provide access to technical
assistance and funding to address energy efficiency opportunities; develop risk management
training to reduce insurance premiums; and explore the potential for pooled liability insurance.
• Continue to provide regulatory support and training on standard operating procedures and
HACCP plans for small-scale slaughter and processing facility operators.
• Encourage the development of livestock cooperatives that are able to address holistically the
slaughter, processing and marketing needs for a given commodity or region.
• Streamline the regulatory structure for mobile poultry processing units and the Modular Harvest
System.
• Provide educational opportunities and incentives for training skilled workers to meet increased
processing demands.
3.4 SEAFOOD
• Examine different types of processing facilities from technical, regulatory and economic
perspectives.
• Support efforts to research and find actions to countermand the impacts of ocean acidification, the
green crab invasion, stormwater runoff and other human-induced changes to the ocean environment.
Policy Options
• Expand efforts to educate consumers about other species of locally sourced fish available for
consumption, and continue policy efforts to market sustainably harvested fish or environmentally
sensitive aquaculture seafood.
• Foster innovative approaches to processing, distributing and marketing under-utilized fish species.
• Create a campaign that parallels the success of farm-to-table and farmers’ markets programs.
xxii
• Advocate for a simplified, streamlined and comprehensive regulatory structure for the aquacul-
ture industry that capitalizes on opportunities, adequately addresses environmental challenges
and provides aquaculture businesses sufficient flexibility to grow.
IV. MARKETS
• Maintain or increase funding for USDA’S Rural Business Enterprise Grant and Specialty Crop Block
Grant programs.
State
• Continue state investments in targeted market promotion that are helping consumers find local
farms, local food and farm products, as well as businesses that source products locally.
• Additional market research is needed on consumer willingness to pay for local and regional food,
especially in large retail and institutional markets. Baseline market research surveys coupled with
periodic updates could help state agencies and nonprofit organizations measure the effective-
ness of local and regional branding programs.
• Analyze how combining state brand identification with environmental and food safety standards
through the Massachusetts Commonwealth Quality Program has affected consumer demand.
• Market research could help determine the value of an expanded Harvest New England or other
regional branding program.
Policy Options
State Branding Programs
• Consider using public-private partnerships to create, promote and police brand standards.
• Sustain local, state and/or federal support for branding programs at multiple levels. Require more
robust marketing and brand promotion strategies for recipients of federal or state micro-financ-
ing programs or business planning assistance.
• Consider increasing consumer exposure and recognition of brands through targeted local adver-
tising that capitalizes on messaging that is persuasive at the local or regional level, and that clar-
ifies what the brand stands for.
• Consider ways, through Harvest New England or other branding efforts, that regional foods can
be better identified through regional wholesale and institutional food distribution channels.
• Evaluate whether state procurement preferences for environmentally preferable products can
and/or should be used to support procurement of in-state or New England-sourced food.
• Develop a tiered regional procurement preference that could be adopted by each New England
state, where in-state food products receive the highest preference, regional food products receive
a lesser preference, and out-of-region food products receive no preference. Further research is
needed on the constitutionality of such preference tiers.
• Explore the use of rebate or so-called volume discount practices, which are widespread in the
food management industry and appear to be a barrier to institutions sourcing more local and
regional food.
Policy Options
• Consider implementing the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic tiers of procurement policy types:
»» Policies that give in-state products what is essentially a “tie goes to local” preference: If all
other factors — including quality, quantity and cost — are equal, the state entity will purchase
the local product.
»» Policies that go one step further than the “tie goes to local” laws, requiring a comparison of
the bid price when in-state bidders compete against out-of-state vendors. These policies either
provide a differential cost preference to in-state bidders by a set percentage and/or increase
the bid price of out-of-state bidders by a set percentage.
»» The Harvard clinic also suggests an alternative procurement mechanism: a statutory target,
requiring state agencies, colleges and universities to purchase a certain percentage of their
food from local sources and to include language to such effect in their contracts with food
management companies.
»» Go beyond “tie goes to local” to include a differential cost preference for in-state foods or to
create a statutory local food target;
»» Include state colleges and universities specifically, where they are not already included;
»» Clarify that, where not included now, preference applies to any entity procuring food for a state
institution, including distributors and food management companies;
»» Create a method to track purchases of local food in order to measure the impact of and track
compliance with state regulations; and
»» Allow the purchase of local agricultural products directly from farm businesses without seek-
ing quotes through the normal bidding process, as long as the purchases are worth less than
$25,000 each, for example.
• Encourage state agencies, colleges and universities to split contracts between local, regional and
nonlocal foods to accommodate local growers.
• Consider adopting a regional procurement preference by all six New England states.
• Consider what role state government can play in educating students about diet and nutrition,
including climate implications of current diets.
• Urge the U.S. Trade Representative and Members of Congress to reject procurement commit-
ments in international trade agreements that would limit the ability of state and local govern-
ments to institute local and regional food procurement preferences.
xxiv
4.3 RETAIL MARKETS
• Maintain funding for USDA’s Farmers Market Promotion Program, which helps communities support
local food systems through direct marketing ventures such as farmers’ markets, roadside stands, com-
munity supported agriculture, agritourism and other direct-to-consumer marketing opportunities.
State
• Continue support for the promotion and development of farmers’ markets and mobile markets,
with a special eye on enhancing consumer convenience through longer hours of operation, better
locations and greater diversity of products.
• Continue support for state programs that are helping farmers with the business plans and infra-
structure needed to develop retail opportunities.
• Where they are not now doing so, states should consider additional funding for Double Value
Coupon Programs.
• Explore using forward contracting and supply agreements, which offer growers greater price
certainty, with retail and institutional buyers to see if these instruments spur additional produc-
tion, especially of fruits and vegetables.
Policy Options
• Consider whether uniform food safety and health regulations around farm retail opportunities are
feasible in states that historically have left these issues to local control.
• Consider standardizing state zoning regulation of farm stands and farm stores, or creating model
regulations for towns that do not have the capacity to pay professional planners.
• Give priority in the federal Healthy Food Financing Initiative and similar state financing programs
to projects that offer a double bottom line of expanding access to healthy food in underserved
communities and expanding market opportunities to farmers in the state or the region. Consider
the relevance of benefit corporation legislation as well.
• Encourage states that currently are not participating in the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program to
participate, as they are leaving federal funding on the table.
• Continue state investments in farm to school programming, which is helping to leverage private
resources, expand economic opportunities for farmers, and educate children about local food
and farming.
• Continue support of USDA’s Farm to School Program, as it is fostering innovative approaches and
collaborations in the region.
• Continue support for the Department of Defense Fresh and USDA Fresh Fruits and Vegetable
Program, which are improving nutritional health while providing expanded market opportunities
for the region’s produce growers.
• Maintain funding for the USDA’s Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, which provides critical
food safety training for producers, and is helping to break down barriers for many growers
selling to institutions.
»» Opportunities for additional collaboration among school districts to attract regional processors;
and
• Analyze whether changes to the DoD Fresh Program over the past 18 months have resulted in
additional procurement of local and regional fruits and vegetables by New England schools.
• Research the use of forward contracting between farmers and institutions, to encourage farmers
to plant specifically for an institutional customer.
Policy Options
• Consider limiting the rebate practices of large food vendors and distributors.
• In states that do so, repeal limits on the number of schools and the percentage of USDA Foods
Program entitlement dollars that can be spent on DoD Fresh.
• Consider tasking a state food policy council or state agency with monitoring implementation and
impact of a state procurement policy.
V. WASTE STREAMS
Policy Options
• Early success in Massachusetts and Vermont has followed careful planning, regulatory changes
and phasing in organics bans. These states’ models suggest that in order to create a robust state-
wide infrastructure for the beneficial reuse of organics, states should take several steps:
»» Analyze their existing legal and physical infrastructure and plan for organics diversion.
~~ Take stock of capacity for on-farm and commercial composting and capacity for feeding
organic material to anaerobic digesters to produce heat and energy.
xxvi
• Amend regulations as necessary to prepare for a phased-in organics ban that will eliminate barri-
ers to composting infrastructure, ensure quality and protect human health.
• Take active steps to implement organics diversion and phase out landfilling, including phasing in
bans and incentivizing municipal participation in organics phase-outs.
• Analyze and apply appropriate models for states to work together toward shared food system
goals. Develop networks and relationships that promote trust and collaborative action.
• Explore a regional food system planning entity to chart a course for greater regional coordi-
nation and collaboration. It could be organized as, for example, a regional food policy coun-
cil or an ad hoc task force. The body could address specific regional-scale issues identified in
state food system plans, or develop a strategic regional plan to achieve jointly identified goals.
Such an entity could be initiated by formal government action or as an outgrowth of the New
England Food Vision and efforts of the New England Farm and Food Security Initiative and/or
Food Solutions New England.
A R E A S F O R G R E AT E R R E G I O N A L C O O R D I N AT I O N A N D C O L L A B O R AT I O N
• Farm Bill: A frequent refrain of stakeholders is the need to strengthen New England’s voice in
establishing and implementing the provisions of the federal farm bill through regionally based
coordination and advocacy.
• Federal Food Safety Modernization Act: Implementation of the new requirements of the fed-
eral Food Safety Modernization Act is a clear potential focus for regional coordination, informa-
tion-sharing and advocacy at the federal level for needed regulatory changes, as well as evalua-
tion of the impacts across states of the act’s implementation.
• Cooperative Extension Programs: Stakeholders identified a need for further efforts to promote
regional resource sharing, coordination and communication among the states’ cooperative exten-
sion programs above and beyond the New England Extension Consortium.
• Food System Workforce Coordination: Stakeholders addressing fair labor and workforce devel-
opment in the food system suggested a regional repository of model state policies and legisla-
tion, coordination of university and other training programs, and educational and licensing reci-
procity agreements among the New England states.
• Institutional and Nutrition Program Procurement: Stakeholders pointed to regional sourcing and
branding of food products as a strategy that could be coordinated with institutional and federal
nutrition program purchasing.
• Meat Processing: Stakeholders discussed meat processing and related federal and state regu-
latory requirements as a potential area for regional agreements, regulatory harmonization and
better coordination to improve market opportunities and slaughterhouse capacity.
• Assessment of Regional Branding: Stakeholders noted that the role of state and regional brand-
ing efforts is an important and evolving issue, suggesting that such efforts may require additional
market research, clearer standards and ongoing monitoring and assessment to ensure that these
efforts provide value and contribute to successful marketing.
• Soil Contamination Issues: Given divergent state regulatory approaches, urban agriculture efforts
throughout New England could benefit from a common set of regional best practices for due dil-
igence, environmental liability protection and soil remediation where urban land or brownfields
are being converted to agricultural uses.
• Coordinated Research: It could prove beneficial to coordinate research on topics of shared inter-
est, including land access mechanisms, food transportation options, supply network options, and
water and marine ecosystem protection and restoration.
• Greater Food Access, Justice and Equity: Rates of food insecurity have escalated throughout
New England during the past 10 years. Many people of color and people living in poverty con-
tinue to have unequal access to healthy foods. Federal food programs are not keeping pace with
demand. Purposefully addressing race and economic disparity among the structural causes of
food system inequities should be a cornerstone of a regional food system vision.
xxviii
Introduction
M
any citizens, organizations and public agencies in the six-state New England region are
working toward broadly shared goals of increased environmental, economic and social
sustainability in our food system. A sustainable food and farming system in New England is
key to creating a healthy region that is resilient, just, economically viable and environmentally sound.
There is no one clear scenario, but several initiatives have identified opportunities for greater regional
collaboration.
In 2010, the chief agricultural officers from each New England state identified, at the request of the
region’s governors, barriers to and opportunities for increased production and consumption of New
England-grown farm and food products. The agricultural officers also considered ways to keep New
England farmland in farming. A complementary initiative, the New England Food Vision, has already
been developed.
The Food Vision suggests what a sustainable regional food system might look like by 2060 and lays
out what is possible in terms of food production and sustainable seafood harvests. The research
presented here considers policy changes that could increase the region’s food production and con-
sumption consistent with the Vision.
This report reflects the collaborative work of three partners: American Farmland Trust (AFT),
Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) and Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
(NESAWG). As co-leaders of this regional food system policy project, AFT, CLF and NESAWG under-
took an analysis of policy barriers and gaps related to implementing the New England Food Vision.
• Land;
• Food production;
• Markets; and
• Waste streams.
Our analysis is based on research conducted by AFT and CLF staff. We conducted 23 interviews with
leaders across the region’s food system. We gathered input from several delegates to the 2013 Food
Solutions New England Summit and invited the interviewees and other key stakeholders to comment
on a draft of the report. This material was synthesized into the sections presented here. In some
instances, more elaboration is contained in an appendix.
Admittedly, there are distinct limitations to this investigation. The project did not cover the entire
food system. Equally important topics such as food access, certain aspects of urban farming, farm
and food-chain workers, seafood and aquaculture, and nutrition merit comparable investigation. We
focus on commercial farming, and do not consider backyard and community gardening. Nor does
this report delve into fundamental issues of equity, fairness and opportunity across the food system.
Other groups are working on these topics and issues, and policy actions at all levels will need to inte-
grate these additional elements and considerations. We also note that this report was researched,
written and finalized before the 2014 Farm Bill was passed; references in our analysis to the “next
farm bill” should be read with the understanding that the 2014 Farm Bill was passed while this report
was in final production. Similarly, the 2012 Census of Agriculture was released while this report was
in final production.
The authors recognize, as do food system leaders in each state, that implementing policy changes
to create a more robust, resilient and sustainable regional food system will require multiple levels of
engagement. Local and state efforts are necessary, but to be truly effective, they must connect to
a broader regional framework and effectively leverage federal policies and resources. Perhaps more
than any other multistate area of the country, New England has a history of cooperation. This offers
promise for our states to work together on food system issues, using tools that range from informal
and ad hoc to more formal and structured.
To inform multistate approaches and solutions, we conducted a scan of regional models for states
working together to achieve shared goals. Each model has potential usefulness depending on the
problem being addressed. This research is described, along with suggestions for action, in the final
section of this report.
Taken together, the report sections comprise an agenda for action. We hope it will guide food system
leaders in each New England state to identify, support and implement public policies that could have
the most significant impact on strengthening our New England food system.
xxx
chapter one
Land
Reducing Conversion,
Increasing Permanent Protection
and Expanding Access
F
armland is essential to New England’s food system, and is a finite resource that has disap-
peared at an alarming rate. A century ago, the region had about 6 million acres in agricultural
use; today the total area devoted to crops and pasture has shrunk to less than 2 million acres.1
This represents just 5 percent of the region’s total land base, or less than a quarter of an acre per
person.2 While some of this land was abandoned and could be reclaimed for agricultural use, a sig-
nificant portion has been permanently lost to development, especially in the more densely populated
southern New England states and along the coasts of northern New England. In the past 30 years
alone, New England developed almost 300,000 acres of crop and pastureland and nearly 1 million
acres of forested land, much of which was once farmland.3 Four states lost more than 10 percent of
their farmland to development in this time period: Connecticut and New Hampshire both lost 13 per-
cent; Massachusetts lost 18 percent; and Rhode Island lost 22 percent.4 As farmland has grown scarcer,
farmland values have risen. The average farmland
value in the region is more than $7,000 per acre,
well over twice the national average.5 Not sur-
prisingly, interviewees cited the lack of access to
Highlights
affordable land as one of the chief impediments
• Access to affordable farmland is a sig-
to expanding the region’s food production.
nificant barrier to expanded food pro-
duction in New England. Improving land
Stopping the loss of productive farmland will
access will require new policy tools,
require new and improved policy tools — from
including tax policy changes to promote
more effective planning and zoning, to estate
the sale or lease of land to farmers.
and other tax policy changes, better mitiga-
tion requirements, and increased investments
• Stopping the loss of productive farm-
in permanent farmland protection at all levels
land will require additional investments
of government. New policy innovations will also
in farmland protection, as well as new
be needed to promote environmentally sound
protection strategies, strengthened
farmland reclamation and to help the next gen-
farmland mitigation policies and more
eration of farmers — many of whom do not
aggressive state incentives for urban
come from farm families — gain access to land.
infill development.
This chapter explores some of these new policy
options, as well as state and federal policies • Less restrictive or ambiguous local
that are currently helping to reduce farmland zoning ordinances are needed to encour-
conversion, increase permanent protection and age urban agriculture.
help new and established farmers gain access
to land.
2
acreage requirements for one out of two years or three seek abatement and to appeal decisions to a state prop-
out of five years before a landowner submits an applica- erty tax review board.
tion for current use assessment. 20
ENROLLMENT
Connecticut has no state-level requirements for size,
income or continuity. Farmers can qualify for current Data detailing the percentage of eligible land enrolled in
use valuation on fallow fields, as long as the reason for current use programs in each state is not readily avail-
its disuse is “soil nutrient replenishment, crop rotation, able. In New Hampshire, landowners have enrolled nearly
… market conditions or various other reasons that might 3 million acres, though this total includes all lands in the
result in a less productive use of the land.”21 The state program, not just farmland. In western Massachusetts, 40
explicitly recognizes that beginning farmers may take sev- percent of the region’s eligible farmland is enrolled in the
eral years to see meaningful returns, and therefore does state’s current use program. Better statewide enrollment
not include an income threshold in its current use valua- data could help inform outreach strategies and program
tion statute.22 While this state policy encourages the inclu- implementation.
4
on land being farmed using key conservation practices In determining the value of an estate, Internal Revenue
or in conformance with a conservation plan. Code section 2032A applies a special use valuation assess-
ment rather than fair market value to farmland. To qualify,
• Provide towns with additional property tax tools to
the property must have been used as a farm for five of
protect farmland, as Maine’s Voluntary Municipal Farm
the last eight years before the farmer died; the decedent
Support Program does.
or a member of his or her family must have participated
• Consider changes to current use statutes to incentivize in the farm business; and the property must be passed to
additional leasing to farmers and longer lease terms. an heir. The use value tax benefit is lost if the property is
sold to a non-family member or if it ceases to be used for
farming within 10 years of the original farmer’s death.43
The use value tax benefit is capped, however, at $1 million,
STATE AND FEDERAL ESTATE TAXES which limits its usefulness for many New England farms.44
(For more information about the federal estate tax, see
Research and Analysis »» Allow property that has been valued using IRS Code
section 2032A to be freely transferred without trig-
• The federal estate tax special use valuation assessment
gering recapture — as long as it is maintained in its
allows farmland to be valued for estate tax purposes qualified use— and eliminate recapture on conserva-
at its agricultural use value, but limits the exemption tion easement sales.
to $1 million. The Family Farm Estate Tax Relief Act
»» Eliminate the cap on the amount by which an
of 2010 (H.R. 5475) proposed to eliminate the cap for estate’s value may be reduced.
use value assessment, retained the recapture provi-
sion if the property or a portion is sold or ceases to be State
used for agricultural purposes, and added an adjust-
• Vermont and Rhode Island are the only states in the
ment of the recapture tax to reflect any increase in the
region with special provisions for farms in their estate
farmland’s value. An analysis of how an increase in the
tax. Changes to estate taxes have been urged by farm
exemption would affect New England farms would be
advocates in several New England states, including
helpful, as would an analysis of the changes proposed
Maine. Legislative Document 490, introduced in the
in H.R. 5475.
Maine legislature in 2011, proposed to exempt from
• Explore the connection between and opportunities to the state estate tax the value of any land classified as
synchronize state current use provisions for property farmland under the state’s farm and open space tax
taxes and federal and state estate tax provisions relat- law for five years preceding the death of the owner.
ing to special use valuation assessment.
• States in other parts of the country have enacted
provisions to exempt agricultural assets from estate
Policy Options
taxes. Pennsylvania, for example, exempts land used
Federal
for farming purposes entirely. The state also exempts
• There are many legislative proposals to revise the other agricultural real estate, such as buildings, if cer-
federal estate tax. One such proposal, developed tain criteria are met, including that the transfer must
by American Farmland Trust, proposes to revise the be within the family; the farm business must continue
6
for seven years after the farmer’s death; and the farm communities plan and zone in ways that support farm-
must produce a gross income of at least $2,000 annu- ing and save farmland. State climate change mitigation
ally for the seven years.55
strategies should include strategies aimed at retaining
working lands.62
8
channeled. A regional program could provide the needed planning and management, transportation planning, and
geographic diversity; depending on the state, state economic development. Municipal staff and the general
enabling legislation may be needed for such a program. public can access mapping information through an online
GIS viewer called MuniMapper, which creates maps with
dozens of map layers of interest to municipal staff.
O P T I M I Z I N G Z O N I N G S TAT U T E S
Some states have facilitated municipal-level smart growth Connecticut also has an interactive GIS map on its web-
policy by amending zoning enabling acts to eliminate site, which highlights the state’s main growth corridors,
contradictory provisions and strengthen municipal land tracking major highways.97 Connecticut’s Conservation
use tools that facilitate mixed-use and high-density devel- and Development Plan — a smart growth-oriented list of
opment.88 Even in Home Rule states, the state government goals and strategies to control the location and type of
can limit or expand municipal power to a great extent.89 development — refers to that map.98 Together, the map
and plan implement a point system for determining prior-
In 2004, Massachusetts adopted the Smart Growth ity funding, based on color-coordinated areas designated
Zoning Overlay District Act, which created overlay zoning for either conservation or development.99 One version of
districts with smart growth requirements.90 These dis- the map specifically identifies farmland protected through
tricts, for example, must permit infill development and the state’s Farmland Preservation Program.100
achieve a high minimum housing density.91 Municipalities
must apply to the Department of Housing and Community
Development to place these zones, but the state grants Action
money to towns that adopt them.92 As of 2009, 27 overlay
Support for Existing Programs
districts had been placed in Massachusetts.93 Pending leg-
islation in the Massachusetts legislature (H. 1859) would • The federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities
update the state’s zoning, subdivision and planning laws to provides funding for regional planning around food
encourage balanced development and land preservation. 94 systems, including agricultural land use.
10
• Agencies supporting the development can determine Massachusetts
whether a site contains farmland and thus is subject Two policies are used to mitigate the loss of farmland
to the act. in Massachusetts. Issued in 1991, Executive Order 193
declares it “essential to ensure that the Commonwealth’s
• Although the Natural Resources Conservation Service
agricultural land remains available for present and future
evaluates the land, the final review relies on site assess-
generations.” 109 This order directs state agencies to avoid
ments performed by agencies that are not concerned
and mitigate against the conversion of farmland. State
with farmland protection.
funds and federal grants administered by the state cannot
• The act lacks reporting requirements and measures to be used to encourage the conversion of agricultural land
evaluate effectiveness. 107 to other uses when feasible alternatives are available.
Mitigation must be provided in cases where state-owned
S TAT E farmland is converted to non-agricultural uses.
Connecticut
The second policy, the Massachusetts Environmental
Under Connecticut General Statutes Section 22-6, the
Policy Act, requires that state agencies study the envi-
commissioner of agriculture is empowered to review any
ronmental impact of their actions and take all feasible
proposed capital project receiving state funding that
measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate damage to the
would convert 25 acres or more of prime farmland to
environment.110 In cases where there will be an effect on
nonagricultural use. The commissioner must report to the
the environment, the Massachusetts Environmental Policy
state Bond Commission whether the project “promotes
Act requires enforceable mitigation commitments, which
agriculture or the goal of agricultural land preservation or
become permit conditions for the project if and when it
if there is no reasonable alternative site for the project.”
is permitted.111 The act applies to projects that are either
The statute does not specifically empower the commis-
proposed by a state agency or are proposed by munic-
sioner to require mitigation.
ipal, nonprofit or private parties and require a permit,
financial assistance, or land transfer from state agencies.112
The statute has been used in at least one instance where
Specifically, the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
state funding was used for the development of nearly
applies to the conversion of land in active agricultural
100 acres of prime farmland. Through negotiations after
use to non-agricultural use if the land includes prime or
a project review, state funding for the project included a
important soils.113
condition that the town create a Farmland Preservation
Committee that was charged with developing a farm-
Based upon Executive Order 193 and the Massachusetts
land preservation strategy and identifying farms for
Environmental Policy Act, the Department of Agricultural
conservation.108
Resources reviews projects involving state funds and pri-
vately funded projects that affect agriculture. The secre-
In 2004, Connecticut enacted a municipal farmland mit-
tary of energy and environmental affairs makes the deci-
igation policy that requires towns that take agricultural
sion to include mitigation when issuing a certificate for
land by eminent domain to mitigate this loss. Local gov-
projects. Under its Agricultural Land Mitigation Policy,
ernments may either purchase an agricultural conserva-
when the avoidance of farmland loss is not possible, the
tion easement on comparable land within its jurisdiction
Department of Agricultural Resources requires that for
or, if no land is available, pay a mitigation fee to the state’s
every acre of farmland converted, one acre of agricultural
farmland protection program to be used to protect farm-
land of comparable or greater agricultural viability be per-
land of similar size and quality elsewhere in the state. The
manently protected for future use. This is accomplished, in
state’s municipal farmland mitigation policy is limited in
order of preference, by:
scope as it only applies to the taking of farmland by emi-
nent domain. It does not appear that any municipality has • The permanent protection of farmland on-site;
been required to take action pursuant to this policy. • The permanent protection of agricultural land off-site,
but where possible in the same community or a con-
tiguous community; or
12
• Where farmland must be converted, mitigation should than full fair market value. A comprehensive analysis of
be required. the effectiveness of these incentives has not yet been
conducted. Farmland is also being protected through
• Any project proposed by a municipality, nonprofit or
other state and federal land conservation programs in the
private party that requires state approval, permit or
region, but an estimate of land protected through these
assistance should be reviewed by the state to deter-
programs is difficult. A couple of interviewees expressed
mine if agricultural land will be converted to nonagri-
concern about the long-term viability of farmland that has
cultural use.
been protected with easements through other programs
»» The conversion of agricultural land to other uses
that have multiple policy objectives.
should not be allowed when feasible alternatives are
available.
»» The permanent protection of farmland on-site; Every New England state has a program that purchases
»» The permanent protection of agricultural land off- agricultural conservation easements from willing land-
site; or owners. Each program has unique administration, eligi-
bility rules and partners. Collectively, the region’s states
»» Financial contributions to a state, municipal or non-
profit farmland protection program. have permanently protected close to 275,000 acres of
farmland, investing $447 million of state resources and
leveraging more than $262 million in federal and local
funds.118 For details on programs by state, including acres
protected and funding, see the Appendix.
1.2 INCREASING PERMANENT
PROTECTION The federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program
is administered by the Natural Resources Conservation
Introduction Service and partners with state and local governments
and land trusts to purchase agricultural conservation
New England has long been considered a leader in farm- easements on eligible farmland. FRPP has provided sig-
land protection, and several interviewees reiterated the nificant leverage to state farmland protection efforts; in
important role that state PACE programs — also known fiscal year 2012 alone, it provided almost $30 million in
as “purchase of development rights” programs — play funding to the region.119
in keeping farmland more affordable for both new and
established farmers. These programs also help farmers The Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program operates
expand and reinvest in their farm operations.117 Since 1996, slightly differently in each New England state. In Vermont
the federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program and Massachusetts, its primary partners are the state
(FRPP) has provided significant resources for farmland PACE programs. In the other four states, land trusts and
protection throughout the region, but the program has towns partner more frequently with FRPP without the
become increasingly inflexible and difficult for both part- involvement of the state PACE program, either because
ners and participating landowners to navigate. Funding the state program has insufficient funding or because
for state PACE programs has been less predictable over the farmland to be protected does not meet the criteria
the past few years as a result of the recession and tighten- of the state program. FRPP has become an increasingly
ing state budgets. States with dedicated revenue sources problematic partner; according to a number of state PACE
for PACE programs have been better able to maintain program managers and land trust staff, frequently chang-
momentum in their protection efforts, even though they ing program rules, inflexible easement terms, and delays
have not been immune to raids on their funding sources. caused by administrative reviews have led some states to
State and federal conservation incentives have helped return FRPP dollars and have caused some potential proj-
to encourage landowners to donate farmland conserva- ects to fall through.120
tion easements to land trusts, or to sell easements at less
14
farmers, but is not necessarily helping new farmers who purposes; this recommendation was ultimately rejected
lack capital resources to gain access to land. by the legislature.137
• The federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program • Implementation of the Farm and Ranch Lands
is critically important to the region’s farmland protec- Protection Program remains a challenge for many state
tion efforts. In both the House and Senate versions PACE programs. The program should be administered
of the next farm bill, this program has been reconfig- in a way that recognizes the longstanding expertise of
ured and renamed the Agricultural Lands Easement state PACE programs in protecting farmland, and defers
Program. The reconfigured program combines the to state programs on easement terms and conditions.
Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program with the
• In parts of New England, productive farmland is not
Grasslands Reserve Program. The Agricultural Lands
eligible for FRPP, notably land in sod and turf pro-
Easement Program is part of a larger Agricultural
duction. Additionally, forested land on prime farm-
Conservation Easement Program.143
land soils may not be eligible. The Natural Resources
• Interviewees underscored the importance of the region’s Conservation Service should work with state PACE
state PACE programs to new and established farmers programs to devise ways to protect these lands.
alike, but most programs are not meeting demand.
Increased funding for these programs is needed. State
• Reauthorization of the enhanced federal tax incen- • States should consider adopting mechanisms such
tive for conservation easement donations is needed, as Massachusetts’ Community Preservation Act that
to continue incentivizing landowners to protect farm- incentivize farmland protection efforts by communities.
land. An analysis of its impact on farmland protection
• Additional funding is needed for the long-term mon-
in New England would help to build support for the
itoring and enforcement of agricultural conservation
incentive among federal policymakers.
easements. States should consider creating a dedi-
cated trust fund for this purpose.
Research and Analysis
• To keep farmland protected through PACE programs
• There is little analysis or modeling underway in any of
affordable, states that have not done so should con-
the six New England states around land use trends and
sider adopting an Option to Purchase at Agricultural
future development patterns, and how those will affect
Value in their PACE programs.
farming and farmland. There has also been little atten-
tion paid to future land needs for agriculture, espe- • State land conservation agencies, farmers and land
cially in light of climate change. Research in this area trusts should increase communication to foster better
would help states target both farmland protection understanding of easement terms and conditions and
dollars as well as technical and planning assistance their effects on farm viability.
16
1.3 EXPANDING LAND ACCESS in Massachusetts, General Law Chapter 40A, §3, prohibits
local zoning ordinances and bylaws from regulating land
URBAN AGRICULTURE: ZONING used for the primary purpose of commercial agriculture,
aquaculture, silviculture, horticulture, floriculture or viti-
Farming is becoming more popular in cities across the culture. This provision, however, applies only to parcels
United States, due to urban communities’ interest in that are at least five acres, or at least two acres if each
healthy and locally grown food. Many cities have also rec- acre produces more than $1,000 in gross sales. Other
ognized the tangible environmental and economic ben- state policies are less prescriptive: Connecticut provides
efits that urban agriculture can bring to their residents. that “zoning regulations shall be made with reasonable
The increased presence of agriculture in urban settings, consideration for their impact on agriculture,”144 and
however, is not universally supported; some residents do New Hampshire creates a presumption that agricultural
not want agricultural land uses in their cities, and some activities are permitted wherever they are not explicitly
worry that prevalent soil contamination makes urban- excluded.145 For a description of other New England state
grown food unsafe to eat. This section focuses on how laws restricting the impact of local zoning regulations on
zoning and soil quality regulatory schemes affect urban agriculture, see the Appendix.
farming and suggests ways that states and municipalities
can improve zoning and soil-contamination regulations to
M U N I C I PA L L AW
responsibly navigate the increased interest in urban farming.
New England’s urban zoning codes reflect a variety of
approaches to regulating agricultural land uses. Below
Introduction is a sampling of existing zoning regulations, or ongoing
efforts to revise zoning codes, pertaining to agriculture in
In order for farming activities to occur in any municipality,
major urban areas in New England.
they must be permitted by applicable land use laws and
regulations. Zoning regulations can be either a major bar-
New Haven, Conn.
rier or an effective avenue for promoting urban farming,
Agriculture, “excluding the keeping of livestock and com-
depending on how they are written. Because farming has
mercial greenhouses and nurseries except for the keeping
historically not been a common practice in New England
of hens,” which may not exceed six, is permitted as-of-right
cities, until recently many urban zoning codes did not con-
in several New Haven residential districts.146 While the city
template agriculture as a permitted land use, or included
is becoming more environmentally friendly and investing
only limited or ambiguous language regarding urban
in small-scale community gardens, the perceived lack of
farming. In an effort to increase the prevalence of urban
available urban spaces impedes commercial agriculture.147
agriculture, several cities in New England have begun to
look at zoning regulations as a way to facilitate urban
Portland, Maine
farming while minimizing health, safety and nuisance con-
Portland’s zoning ordinance allows for agriculture as-of-
cerns. This section of the report examines the impact of
right in low-density residential districts.148 The ordinance
state law and local zoning regulations on the practice of
broadly defines agriculture to include “nurseries, green-
urban farming, and suggests methods for revising zoning
houses, and truck gardens.”149 The city also permits com-
codes in order to fully take advantage of the benefits of
mercial sales of products grown on-premises, provided
urban farming, while minimizing potential harms.
that a given farm stand does not exceed 200 square feet
in floor area.150
Discussion
Boston, Mass.
S TAT E L AW Boston’s zoning code was recently revised to permit urban
agriculture in all districts of the City. Before leaving office
While regulation of local land uses is generally accom-
in 2013, Mayor Thomas Menino created the Mayor’s Urban
plished at the municipal level, several states in New
Agriculture Working Group as part of a citywide rezoning
England have overarching statutes aimed at minimizing
initiative led by the Boston Redevelopment Authority. The
the impacts of local zoning on agriculture. For instance,
working group was tasked with developing new policies
to encourage urban agriculture.151 A new section of the
18
long periods of time and become blighted. If remediated records whether a property is sufficiently clean to be
properly, brownfield sites can be used for agricultural used for food cultivation.
purposes, although great care must be taken to eliminate
public health and liability risks.
Action $15 million; and from 2005 through 2009, the Nebraska
program issued credits to 435 asset owners at a value of
$1.9 million.166
Support for Existing Programs
20
LAND LEASING: PUBLIC LANDS In 2009, the Connecticut legislature directed the
Connecticut Farmland Preservation Advisory Board to
Forests
This section spotlights some existing state and municipal Vermont identifies high-density, easily accessible maple
farmland leasing models. Note that some public programs stands for its sugar bush licensing program. The Vermont
operate with licenses, not leases. The terms “lease” and Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation has worked
“leasing” are intended here to cover both types of con- with the Vermont Maple Sugar Makers Association to get
tracts. A license confers permission to use the property, eight sites up and running.175
whereas a lease provides the lessee with specific rights in
the property. TENANTS
Cash rent is sometimes earmarked for the agencies admin- farmland, as Connecticut did in 2013 with the 825-acre
istering public land leases to help make the programs Southbury Training School.191
financially self-sustaining.185 For example, income from the • Where feasible and appropriate, encourage state con-
licensing of Vermont’s sugar bushes — 25 percent of the servation agencies to incorporate agricultural produc-
market rate for fancy and commercial-grade syrup, mul- tion into their land management strategies.
tiplied by the number of taps — goes to a revolving fund
• Consider strategies to improve tenure security, such as
used to manage state parks.186
longer or rolling lease terms and ground leases.
22
FINANCING LAND ACQUISITION assets. Matched savings are capped at $3,000 annually.
The 2008 Farm Bill authorized appropriations of up to
Introduction $25 million — $5 million per year for five years — for the
Farm Service Agency to establish pilot projects in at least
The high cost of land in New England is one of the most 15 states. Since funding was never appropriated, how-
significant barriers to both farm expansion and new farm ever, pilot states have not been selected.194 The program
start-ups. Competition for land continues to elevate is reauthorized in both the House and Senate versions of
prices beyond the reach of many established farmers and the next farm bill.195
for most young and beginning farmers.192 The region has
some of the highest farm real estate values in the country: State Individual Development Accounts
In 2012, the six-state average per acre value was $7,145 At the state level, IDAs in New England are designed to
— more than 2.5 times the national average — and three help low-income families and individuals purchase assets,
New England states rank in the top five highest values in including a home, small business, post-secondary educa-
the country.193 tion or vehicle, or put a deposit on an apartment. Limits
on annual contributions vary, but are generally rather low,
State PACE programs are making farmland more afford- ranging from $500 to $1,000. Many of these programs are
able to farmers, both by restricting the development administered by nonprofit and community organizations
potential of farmland and, in some cases, by including an and data on their use is not readily available. It is unclear
affordability mechanism in the easement. Several other whether any of these state programs could be used for
tools are available to help farmers finance land acquisi- the purchase of farmland or farm equipment without stat-
tion, including individual development accounts, as well utory amendment. In some states, such as Connecticut,
as long-established farm lending programs. For more businesses that contribute to state IDA funds can receive
information about PACE programs, see the Increasing tax credits.196 (For more information about IDA programs
Permanent Protection section earlier in this chapter. by state, see the Appendix.)
Food Enterprises, section 2.1, chapter 2. tions aimed at making farmland more affordable for
new and beginning farmers, including:
24
»» In state PACE programs, where applicable, lift
restrictions on future subdivisions of protected Discussion
farms.204 Allowing appropriate subdivision of larger
protected farms and farm parcels will not only help P R O G R A M S T O I N C E N T I V I Z E AG R I C U LT U R A L
farms adapt to changing agricultural circumstances
L A N D R E S T O R AT I O N
and needs, but can also provide opportunities for
new and beginning farmers to gain access to smaller State Programs
farm parcels at a more affordable price. Connecticut is the only New England state with a program
»» Within the existing PACE programs, develop entirely that helps landowners restore farmland. Farmers can cost
new offerings geared specifically to new and begin- share with the Farmland Restoration Program to restore
ning farmers. A “starter farm” program within exist- land with prime and important soils to active agricultural
ing PACE programs would target the protection of use. In evaluating applications, priority is given to food pro-
smaller farm properties with housing. To encourage duction, followed by livestock feed and forage, and lastly
the property to remain a stand-alone farm, require
to other agricultural uses. Restoration practices approved
that the house stay with the farm. To maintain its
for payment must be based on an approved conservation
future affordability, consider restricting the size of
the house.205 or farmland restoration plan. (For more details and a brief
case study, see the Appendix.)
• Consider expanding existing state individual develop-
ment account programs, or establish new programs
In Massachusetts, the Community Preservation Act is a
in those states without one, to specifically include the
funding mechanism used to preserve open space, farm-
purchase of farmland as an authorized use. Increase
land and historic sites, create affordable housing, and
the annual cap on participant savings that can
develop outdoor recreational facilities.206 Community
be matched.
Preservation Act funds can be used for the “rehabilitation
or restoration of open space,” which includes agricultural
land.207 The act allows communities to raise funds through
a real estate tax surcharge that is matched at various
1.4 INCREASING AVAILABLE levels by a statewide fund.208 While funds have been used
FARMLAND to restore natural areas around rivers, ponds, wetlands
and coastal areas, the act does not appear to have been
AGRICULTURAL LAND RESTORATION used for the restoration of agricultural land.
Action
Research and Analysis
26
ENDNOTES
1
Brian Donahue et al., A New England Food Vision: Healthy Food, Sustainable Farming and Fisheries, Thriving
Communities 5–7 (June 4, 2013) (draft), http://www.kendall.org/files/Vision%20review%20draft%2013.06.03_0.pdf.
2
Cris Coffin, Kathy Ruhf, Kip Kolesinskas & Aaron Dushku, What We Know (and Don’t Know) About New England
Farmland, at Keep New England Farmland in Farming: A Regional Convening, at *5 (May 8, 2013) [hereinafter What We
Know], http://www.farmland.org/documents/whatweknowandwelcome.pdf.
3
Id. at *11.
4
Id.
5
2013 Farm Real Estate Value by State, Nat’l Agric. Statistical Serv., http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Land_
Values_and_Cash_Rents/farm_value_map.asp (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
6
Fact Sheet: Differential Assessment and Circuit Breaker Tax Programs, Am. Farmland Trust (Aug. 2006),
http://www.farmland.org/programs/states/wa/documents/APPENDIXK-Currentusetaxation.pdf.
7
Fact Sheet: Cost of Community Services Studies, Am. Farmland Trust (Aug. 2010),
http://www.communitypreservation.org/community_services.pdf.
8
Land Access and Tenure Toolshed: Land Use Regulations, Univ. of Vt.,
http://www.uvm.edu/newfarmer/?Page=land/land_use_regs.html&SM=land/sub-menu.html (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
9
See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-107a to 107f; 7 M.R.S. § 152; M.G.L.c. 61A §§ 1–15; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 79-A:1–14;
R.I.G.L. § 44–27; 32 V.S.A. §§ 3751–63.
10
Connecticut’s Land Use Value Assessment Law, Public Act 490: A Practical Guide and Overview for Landowners,
Assessors and Government Officials, Conn. Farm Bureau Ass’n, Inc. 9, 11 (2010),
http://www.ct.gov/doag/lib/doag/marketing_files/complete_490guide_cfba.pdf.
11
R.I. Rules and Regulations for Enforcement of the Farm, Forest, and Open Space Act § 25-3-21:5.
12
Personal Communication between Conservation Law Foundation attorney Anthony Iarrapino and Pete Susi, R.I. DEM
Deputy Chief of the Div. of Agric. (Oct. 18, 2013).
13
Id.
14
See 7 M.R.S. § 152; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 79-A:1–14; R.I. Rules and Regulations for Enforcement of the Farm, Forest,
and Open Space Act § 25-3-21:5; 32 V.S.A. §§ 3751–63.
15
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 79-A:1–14.
16
M.G.L.c. 61A §§ 1–3.
17
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-107c.
18
See Land Access and Tenure Toolshed: Land Use Regulations, Univ. of Vt.,
http://www.uvm.edu/newfarmer/?Page=land/land_use_regs.html&SM=land/sub-menu.html (last visited Dec. 25, 2013).
19
M.G.L.c. 61A § 3.
20
E.g., 7 M.R.S. § 152; M.G.L.c. 61A §§ 1–15; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 79-A:1–14; 32 V.S.A. §§ 3751–63; R.I. Rules and Regula-
tions for Enforcement of the Farm, Forest, and Open Space Act § 25-3-21:5.
21
Connecticut’s Land Use Value Assessment Law, Public Act 490: A Practical Guide and Overview for Landowners,
Assessors and Government Officials, Conn. Farm Bureau Ass’n, Inc. 11 (2010),
http://www.ct.gov/doag/lib/doag/marketing_files/complete_490guide_cfba.pdf.
22
Id. at 30.
23
Id. at 28.
24
See Land Access and Tenure Toolshed: Land Use Regulations, supra note 18.
25
Planning For Agriculture: A Guide for Connecticut Municipalities, Am. Farmland Trust 10,
http://www.ctplanningforagriculture.com/guide/AFT_guide_web9-29.pdf (last visited Dec. 26, 2013).
26
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann § 79-F:4.
27
E.g., 32 V.S.A. §§ 3752(12).
28
E.g., N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 79-A:4; 32 V.S.A. § 3754.
30
See, e.g., M.G.L.c. 61A, §§ 12–13.
31
M.G.L.c. 61A, § 19.
32
M.G.L.c. 61A, § 14.
33
Id.
34
Id.
35
Id.
36
Id.
37
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 79-A:25-a.
38
See Dijit Taylor & Carol Andrews, The New Hampshire Municipal Conservation Fund Guidebook 1–18 (2010),
http://www.forestsociety.org/pdf/nh-municipal-conservation-fund-guidebook.pdf.
39
Id. at 43.
40
See Stacey Benjamin, Cultivating Maine’s Agricultural Future: A Guide for Towns, Land Trusts, and Farm Supporters 5,
15 (Oct. 5, 2012), http://nnecapa.org/files/2012/02/F03-a_Farmland_NNECAPA2012.pdf; see also Voluntary Municipal Farm
Support Program, Maine.gov, http://www.maine.gov/dacf/ard/farmland_protection/voluntary_municipal_farm_support.
shtml (last visited Dec. 26, 2013).
41
2007 Census of Agriculture, USDA (2007) [hereinafter 2007 Census],
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf.
42
Estate Tax, Internal Revenue Serv., http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Estate-Tax
(last visited Dec. 26, 2013).
43
Ron Durst et al., How Will the Phaseout of Federal Estate Taxes Affect Farmers?, 741-02 Agric. Info. Bulletin 1, 2
(Feb. 2002), http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/29085/aib751-02.pdf.
44
The amount by which the estate’s value may be reduced is capped. For 2013, the maximum reduction in value was
$1.07 million. This amount is adjusted for inflation. If spouses own the farm jointly and both make the election, a reduction
of up to $2.14 million could be available. It is not clear how many farms would benefit from an increased cap, because the
available agricultural real estate data groups farms in large categories, such as $5 million to $10 million in farm real estate
value. See 2007 Census, supra note 41.
45
See id.
46
See 36 M.R.S. § 4201(5).
47
See 2007 Census, supra note 41.
48
See A Guide to Estate Taxes, Mass.gov, http://www.mass.gov/dor/individuals/taxpayer-help-and-resources/tax-guides/
estate-tax-information/estate-tax-guide.html (last visited Dec. 26, 2013).
49
See 2007 Census, supra note 41.
50
See Frequently Asked Questions, N.H. Dep’t of Revenue Admin.,
http://www.revenue.nh.gov/faq/gti-rev.htm#inheritance (last visited Dec. 26, 2013).
51
See R.I.G.L. § 44-23-5; Farms Win Inheritance Victory in Budget Bill, R.I. Gen. Assembly (June 27, 2013),
http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/News/pr1.asp?prid=9513.
52
32 V.S.A. § 7442a.
53
See id. § 7443.
54
See 2007 Census, supra note 41.
55
Inheritance Tax, Penn. Dep’t of Revenue,
http://www.revenue.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/inheritance_tax/11414 (last visited Dec. 26, 2013).
56
For a detailed definition and study of sprawl, see generally Reid Ewing et al., Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact (2002),
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/MeasuringSprawl.PDF.
57
See What We Know, supra note 2.
58
E-mail Communication with Jennifer Dempsey, Director, Farmland Info. Ctr., Am. Farmland Trust (Dec. 2013).
28
59
Id.
60
See Harvard Food Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic, Good Laws, Good Food: Putting Local Food Policy to Work
for Our Communities 7–9 (July 2012), http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/foodpolicyinitiative/files/2011/09/FINAL-LOCAL-TOOLKIT2.
pdf at 7-9 (last visited Jan. 7, 2014).
61
Id.
62
See, e.g., California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, S.B. 375 (Cal. 2008) (calling on re-
gional transportation planning agencies and local governments to develop strategies for reducing per capita vehicle miles
traveled).
63
See Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food: Compass Map, USDA,
http://www.usda.gov/maps/maps/kyfcompassmap.htm (last visited Dec. 26, 2013).
64
See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 674:2; Conn. Office of Policy and Mgmt., Conservation & Development Policies: The Plan for
Connecticut 43 (2013), http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/igp/org/cdupdate/2013-2018_cd_plan.pdf (discussing Conn. Pub.
Act 09-230); 24 V.S.A. § 2791(13); Rhode Island State Land Use Policies and Plan: Executive Summary, R.I. Div. of Planning,
http://www.planning.ri.gov/documents/121/lu_exec.pdf (last visited Dec. 26, 2013); Mass. Exec. Order No. 385; 30-A M.R.S.
§ 4312.
65
See, e.g., Conn. Office of Policy and Mgmt., supra note 64, at 6 (explaining that local plans are not required to conform
to smart growth principles in the state plan, but must “note any inconsistencies”).
66
E.g., R.I.G.L. § 45-22.2-9; 24 V.S.A. §§ 4302(b) & (c).
67
See Act 250, Vt. Natural Res. Bd.: District Commissions, http://www.nrb.state.vt.us/lup/publications/nrb1.pdf (Act 250
summary and guide developed by the Vermont Natural Resources Board).
68
Id.
69
See Jack Kraichnan, Vermont’s Act 183: Smart Growth Takes Root in the Green Mountain State, 32 Vt. L. Rev. 583, 593
(2008).
70
Id.
71
See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. 05-205; Smart Growth/Smart Energy Toolkit, Mass.gov [hereinafter Smart Growth/Smart
Energy Toolkit], http://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/pages/state-policy.html (MA); Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 30-A, §
4346 (last visited Dec. 26, 2013); R.I.G.L. § 42-11-10(g)(4); 24 V.S.A. § 4306.
72
24 V.S.A. 2793(a).
73
Id. § 2793c.
74
Growth Center, Planning Manual for Vermont Communities, Vt. Dep’t of Housing and Community Affairs 7 (2007),
http://accd.vermont.gov/sites/accd/files/Documents/strongcommunities/cd/designations/GrowthCenter(hr).pdf.
75
Id.
76
See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16a-35c to 35h.
77
See, e.g., Land Use Planning Techniques, N.H. Dep’t of Envtl. Serv. et al. (Oct. 2008), http://des.nh.gov/organization/
divisions/water/wmb/repp/documents/ilupt_complete_handbook.pdf; Smart Growth/Smart Energy Toolkit, supra note 71.
78
See Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 8-31a et seq.; M.G.L.c. 40B §§ 1 et seq.; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 36:45–36:58; 30-A M.R.S. §§
2301–43; 24 V.S.A. §§ 4301 et seq.
79
See Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 8-31a et seq.; M.G.L.c. 40B §§ 1 et seq.; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 36:45–36:58; 30-A M.R.S. §§
2301–43; 24 V.S.A. §§ 4301 et seq.
80
See 24 V.S.A. § 4342; see also Vermont Association of Planning & Development Agencies,
http://www.vapda.org/ (last visited Dec. 26, 2013) (central website for all Vermont regional planning commissions).
81
See 24 V.S.A. §§ 4349, 4362.
82
See 24 V.S.A. § 4345a.
83
See 24 V.S.A. § 4362.
84
See Sustainable Communities, Partnership for Sustainable Communities,
http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/ (last visited Dec. 26, 2013).
85
See Local Food and Agriculture, Sustainable Berkshires,
http://sustainableberkshires.org/plan-topics/local-food-and-agriculture/ (last visited Dec. 26, 2013).
86
See MAGIC Comprehensive Agriculture Plan, Metropolitan Area Planning Council,
http://www.mapc.org/magicagriplan (last visited Dec. 26, 2013).
88
See, e.g., M.G.L.c. 40R §§ 1 et seq.; 24 V.S.A. §§ 4416–23.
89
See, e.g., 30-A M.R.S. § 4351.
90
See M.G.L.c. 40R §§ 1 et seq.
91
See M.G.L.c. 40R § 6.
92
See M.G.L.c. 40R §§ 9, 11.
93
See Ann Verilli et al., The Use of Chapter 40R in Massachusetts 5 (Oct. 2009), http://www.mass.gov/hed/docs/dhcd/
cd/ch40r/theuseofch40rin-ma.pdf (providing a summary and assessment of Chapter 40R).
94
See An Act Promoting the Planning and Development of Sustainable Communities, H.B. 1859, 188th Sess. (Mass. 2013).
95
See R.I. Pub. Laws 2011, ch. 401, § 1 & R.I. Pub. Laws 2012, ch. 342, § 1 (amending R.I.G.L. § 45-24-37).
96
See Statute, Rule and Requirements, RI.gov, http://www.planning.ri.gov/statewideplanning/compplanning/statue.php
(last visited Dec. 26, 2013).
97
Office of Policy and Mgmt., CT.gov, http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.asp?a=2990&q=383182&opmNav_GID=1807.
(last visited Feb. 26, 2014).
98
See Conn. Office of Policy and Mgmt., supra note 64, at 11–34.
99
Id. at 30–34 (go to http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/igp/org/cdupdate/lgm_adopted.pdf for a direct link to the
Locational Map).
100
See id. at 18–22.
101
See Mass. Gov’t, Smart Growth/Smart Energy Toolkit, Model Bylaw: Transit Oriented Development Overlay District 1–12,
http://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/bylaws/TOD-Bylaw.pdf (last visited Dec. 26, 2013)
(describing TOD Bond Program criteria).
102
See generally Natural Resources Inventory, USDA (2007),
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/nra/nri/.
103
Farmland Protection Policy Act, USDA, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/?ss=16&navtype=
SUBNAVIGATION&cid=nrcs143_008275&navid=100170180000000&pnavid=100000000000000&position=Welcome.
Html&ttype=detail&pname=Farmland%20Protection%20Policy%20Act%20%7C%20NRCS (last visited Dec. 26, 2013).
104
See Mitigation of Farmland Loss, Am. Farmland Trust 4–5 (Sept. 2002) [hereinafter Mitigation of Farmland Loss],
http://www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/FPPA_Mitigation_Report_1.pdf.
105
Sec’y of Agric., Farmland Protection Policy Act Annual Report for FY 2011 2 (Feb. 2011),
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1049239.pdf.
106
Farmland Information Center, Fact Sheet: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Am. Farmland Trust *2 (June 2004),
http://www.farmland.org/about/mission/documents/AFT_FPPA_6-04.pdf.
107
Id.
108
See Town of Cromwell Farmland Preservation Committee, Final Report (Mar. 15, 2012)
http://cromwellct.com/whatsnew%20files/2012/fpc%20final%20report%20text31612.pdf.
109
Exec. Order 193 (Mass. 1981), available at http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/eo/eotext/EO193.txt.
110
See M.G.L. c. 30 §§ 61–62H.
111
See id. § 11.07.
112
See id. § 11.02.
113
See id. § 11.03(1).
114
The $10,000-per-acre figure is based on current applications to the Agricultural Preservation Restriction Program and
thus subject to change. Agricultural Land Mitigation Policy, Dep’t of Agric. Res. 2 (Dec. 2, 2008),
http://www.farmland.org/programs/states/ma/documents/AG_Land_Mitigation.pdf.
115
See Mitigation of Farmland Loss, supra note 104, at 15.
116
Ben Waterman, Prime Ag Soils in Jeopardy (Part II) (July 28, 2010) http://newfarmerproject.wordpress.
com/2010/07/28/prime-ag-soils-in-jeopardy-part-ii/; see Act 250 Off-Site Mitigation: Criterion 9(B) and Mitigation Agree-
ments: How Mitigation Funds are Used to Protect Vermont Farmland Forever, Vt. Dep’t of Agric., Food and Markets & Vt.
Housing and Conservation Bd. 2–11 (Jan. 31, 2003), http://www.vhcb.org/mitigationreport.pdf.
30
117
See generally Impacts of the Federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program: An Assessment Based on interviews
with Participating Landowners, Am. Farmland Trust [hereinafter Impacts], http://www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/
FRPP%20Evaluation2nn_web3.ppt (last visited Dec. 27, 2013); Kirsten Ferguson & Jeremiah Cosgrove, Am. Farmland Trust,
From the Field: What Farmers Have to Say About Vermont’s Farmland Conservation Program, available at
http://www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/From_The_Field_1.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
118
See Cris Coffin, Permanent Protection: Raising Public and Private Dollars—Successful Strategies, Am. Farmland Trust
*5, presented at Keep New England Farmland in Farming: A Regional Convening (May 8, 2013),
http://www.farmland.org/documents/PermanentProtectioRaisingPublicandPrivateDollarsFINAL.pdf.
119
See NRCS Conservation Programs: Farm and Ranchlands Protection Program (FRPP), USDA,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/NRCS_RCA/reports/fb08_cp_frpp.html (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
120
See E-mail Communication with Land Trusts and State PACE Program Managers from Conn., Mass., Me., N.H., R.I. and
Vt. (Dec. 2013).
121
See Impacts, supra note 117.
122
See id.
123
See id.
124
See id.
125
Interview with Nancy Everhart, Agric. Director, Vt. Housing & Conservation Bd. (Dec, 20, 2013); E-mail communication
by Ben Bowell with Nancy Everhart, Agric. Director, Vt. Housing & Conservation Bd. (Dec. 2013).
126
Testimony of Rich Hubbard, Chair, Mass. Land Trust Coal. before the Mass. Joint Comm. on Env’t, Natural Res. and
Agric. (Sept. 18, 2013).
127
APR Improvement Program (AIP), Mass.gov, http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/agr/about/divisions/aip.html
(last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
128
Id.
129
Does the Option at Agricultural Value Protect Farmland for Beginning Farmers? A Policy Analysis, Land for Good 3
[hereinafter A Policy Analysis], http://newyork.farmland.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/OPAV-FINAL.pdf
(last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
130
Id. at 2.
131
Id. at 6.
132
See Vt. Housing & Conservation Bd., http://www.vhcb.org/ (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
133
See CPA: An Overview, Comm. Preservation Coal., http://www.communitypreservation.org/content/cpa-overview
(last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
134
Id.
135
Ben Leubsdorf, For LCHIP, New Budget Means a Windfall for Conservation, Preservation Projects, Concord Monitor,
July 7, 2013, http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/7262223-95/for-lchip-new-budget-means-a-windfall-for-
conservation-preservation-projects.
136
See id.
137
See Policy Efforts, Working Lands Alliance, http://www.workinglandsalliance.org/pages/efforts.html (last visited Dec.
27, 2013).
138
See Debra Pentz, State Conservation Tax Credits: Impact and Analysis, The Conservation Res. Ctr. 9, 25–26 (2007),
http://www.taxcreditexchange.com/documents/StateConservationTaxCreditsImpactandAnalysis.pdf.
139
See Commonwealth Conservation Land Tax Credit (CLTC), Mass.gov, http://www.mass.gov/eea/state-parks-beaches/
land-use-and-management/land-conservation/massachusetts-conservation-tax-credit-program.html
(last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
140
Personal Communication with Bob O’Connor, Mass. Exec. Office of Energy and Envtl. Affairs (Aug. 2, 2013).
141
The enhanced incentive was created in the 2006 Pension Protection Act, extended through 2009 in the 2008 farm
bill, and then extended through 2011 by section 723 of H. R. 4853. See The Enhanced Easement Incentive, Land Trust
Alliance, http://www.landtrustalliance.org/policy/tax-matters/campaigns/the-enhanced-easement-incentive
(last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
142
See id.
143
See A New Farm Bill: Farm Policy for the 21st Century, Am. Farmland Trust Farm, http://www.farmbillfacts.org/
(last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
145
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 674:32-a.
146
New Haven, Conn., Zoning Ordinance, art. III, § 12 & art. IV, § 34.
147
Interview by John Subranni with Joy Ford, City Plan Dep’t (Sept. 27, 2012).
148
See Portland, Me., Code of Ordinance, ch. 14, art. III, div. 2, § 14-67(b); Portland, Me., Code of Ordinance, ch. 14, art. III,
div. 3, § 14-77; Portland, Me., Code of Ordinance, ch. 14, art. III, div. 7.1, § 145.2.
149
See Portland, Me., Code of Ordinance, ch. 14, art. III, div. 3, § 14-77.
150
Id.
151
See Urban Agriculture Rezoning Initiative, Boston Redevelopment Authority, http://www.bostonredevelopment
authority.org/planning/planning-initiatives/urban-agriculture-rezoning (last visited Jan.14, 2014).
152
Id.
153
24 V.S.A. §§ 4413, 4414(1)(B).
154
Burlington, Vt., Comprehensive Development Ordinance art. III, § 4.4.6(a)(1).
155
Urban Agriculture Task Force, Burlington Food Council, http://burlingtonfoodcouncil.org/our-projects/uatf/
(last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
156
See, e.g., M.G.L.c. 40A, § 3.
157
See R.I.G.L. § 45-22.2-6(b)(11).
158
See, e.g., Interim Zoning, South Burlington, Vt., http://www.sburl.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7
BEFB8282C-0E28-4F48-A16F-8273E6CEAB75%7D (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
159
See, e.g., David E. Stillwell et al., Lead and Other Heavy Metals in Community Gardens Soils in Connecticut, The Conn.
Agric. Experiment Station, Bulletin 1019, at 1 (Aug. 2008), http://insideurbangreen.typepad.com/files/lead-and-
other-heavy-metals-in-community-gardening-soils-in-connecticut-.pdf.
160
See Brownfields and Urban Agriculture: Interim Guidelines for Safe Gardening Practices, Envtl. Protection Agency 14
(2011), http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/urbanag/pdf/bf_urban_ag.pdf.
161
See Soil Safety Guidelines for Commercial Urban Farming, Boston Redevelopment Authority 1–3, http://www.boston
redevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/d37db157-5bc8-479c-aa73-dc462441519a (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
162
See Assessing Policies and Strengthening Resources to Help Beginning Farmers Secure Land and Succeed in
Agriculture, Am. Farmland Trust (draft Dec. 2013) [hereinafter Assessing Policies].
163
Comments by Joseph Dippel, Conn. Dep’t of Agric. at Farmland Access Forum, Windsor, Conn. (Nov. 2013).
164
What We Know, supra note 2, at 14.
165
See Iowa Beginning Farmer Tax Credit, Iowa Finance Authority, http://www.iowafinanceauthority.gov/Public/Pages/
PC204LN48 (last visited Dec. 27, 2013); Beginning Farmer Programs—Tax Credit Program, Neb. Dep’t of Agric.,
http://www.agr.ne.gov/beg_farmer/taxcp.html (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
166
See Beginning Farmer Loan Program, Iowa Finance Authority, http://www.iowafinanceauthority.gov/Public/Pages/
PC202LN48 (last visited Dec. 27, 2013); Beginning Farmer Tax Credit Act—Annual Report, Neb. Dep’t of Agric.,
http://nlc1.nlc.state.ne.us/epubs/A5000/A004-200809.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
167
Bob Wagner et al., Farmland Access and Tenure Innovations: Policy and Program Suggestions to Promote Land Access
for New England’s Beginning Farmers, Land Access Project 5 (2013),
http://newyork.farmland.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Farmland-Access-Tenure-Innovations-FINAL.pdf.
168
Id.
169
Id.
170
Id. at 6.
171
Farmland ConneCTions, Am. Farmland Trust & Univ. of Conn. 3 (2011) [hereinafter Farmland ConneCTions],
http://www.farmland.org/documents/FINAL_AFTFarmlandConneCTions_lo.pdf.
172
Vermont Natural Resources Atlas, Vt. Agency of Natural Res., http://anrmaps.vermont.gov/websites/anra/
(last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
173
See HB 1211, N.H. Liberty Alliance (2012), http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2012/HB1211.
32
174
See Welcome to Working Lands Alliance, Working Lands Alliance, http://www.workinglandsalliance.org/
(last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
175
Vt. State Legislature, Maple Sugaring on State Forest and State Park Land 2 (Jan. 2010),
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/2010ExternalReports/252639.pdf.
176
See generally Advertisement: Department of Environmental Management: Agricultural Land Leases, R.I. Dep’t of Envtl.
Mgmt. [hereinafter Advertisement], http://www.dem.ri.gov/pubs/lndlease.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
177
See, e.g., id.
178
See, e.g., Bill Status System, N.H. General Court, http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.
aspx?lsr=2622&sy=2012&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2012&txtbillnumber=hb1211&q=1 (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
179
See Advertisement, supra note 176, at 2, 17.
180
See Massachusetts State-owned Farmland Licensing Program, USDA Nat’l Agric. Library http://www.start2farm.gov/
programs/massachusetts-state-owned-farmland-licensing-program (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
181
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-26jj(b)–(d).
182
Id.
183
See Farmland ConneCTions, supra note 171, at 3, 9.
184
See generally Descriptions of Program Properties, Mass.gov, http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/agr/land-use/
descriptions-of-program-properties.html (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
185
See generally Representative Tara Sad, Study Committee on HB 1211, Report from the Study Committee on HB 1211 3
(Nov. 1, 2012), http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/reports/2091.pdf.
186
See Vt. State Legislature, supra note 175, at 5.
187
See Representative Tara Sad, supra note 185, at 3.
188
See Advertisement, supra note 176.
189
Id. at 1.
190
Guidelines and Licensing Requirements for Tapping and Collecting Sap from Maple Trees on Department of Forests,
Parks and Recreation Lands, Vt. Dep’t of Forests, Parks & Recreation 4 (July 2010),
http://www.vtfpr.org/lands/maplesugaring/SugaringTappingGuidelines.pdf.
191
See Policy Efforts, supra note 137.
192
See What We Know, supra note 2, at 6.
193
2013 Farm Real Estate Value by State, USDA, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Land_Values_and_Cash_
Rents/farm_value_map.asp (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
194
See Individual Development Account, Nat’l Sustainable Agric. Coal., http://sustainableagriculture.net/publications/
grassrootsguide/farming-opportunities/individual-development-account/ (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
195
See Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012, U.S. Senate Comm. on Agric., Nutrition & Forestry,
http://www.ag.senate.gov/issues/agriculture-reform-food-and-jobs-act-of-2012 (last visited Dec. 27, 2013); Farm Bill,
House Comm. on Agric., http://agriculture.house.gov/farmbill (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
196
Connecticut Individual Development Account Initiative (IDA): Frequently Asked Questions, Conn. Dep’t of Labor,
http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/ida/dir/faq.html (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
197
Vermont Agriculture Individual Development Account Program, Univ. of Vt.,
http://www.uvm.edu/extension/youth/vtyouthagida/ (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
198
See generally California FarmLink, http://www.californiafarmlink.org/index.php (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
199
See Wagner et al., supra note 167, at 10.
200
See Assessing Policies, supra note 162.
201
See Wagner et al., supra note 167, at 11.
202
Id.
203
Id. at 10.
204
Id. at 12.
206
See M.G.L.c. 44B §§ 1–17.
207
Id. § 5(b)(2).
208
See CPA: An Overview, supra note 133.
209
Fact Sheet: Environmental Quality Incentives Program, USDA 1–2 (May 2009),
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_007742.pdf.
210
Interview by Ben Bowell with Kip Kolesinskas, USDA, Natural Res. Conservation Serv., State Soil Scientist for Conn. and
R.I. from 1991 to 2011 (Oct. 26, 2012); Environmental Quality Incentives Program, USDA,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip/ (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
34
chapter 2
Food Production
A
griculture is inherently risky. It is becoming more so due to the impacts of climate change.
Food production in New England in particular is challenged by many factors, including
physical limitations, such as land and climate; input costs, such as labor, energy and feed;
and other business expenses, such as taxes and regulatory compliance. The continued decline
of agricultural support services in the region, such as research and extension, provides an addi-
tional challenge to producers trying to compete
against food imports from around the country
and the world, many of which benefit from gov-
ernment-sponsored research and technologies.
Highlights
This chapter looks at public programs and
• The availability of farm labor is a key
policies that affect food production.1 In some
impediment to increasing regional
instances, public policy is helping farmers
food production. Federal immigration
reduce costs, increase productivity and reduce
reform legislation passed in the Senate
risk. In other instances, public policy is falling
in 2013 would effectively address this
short and will need to do more to help farm-
concern, by creating an agricultural
ers address production challenges and improve
guest-worker program administered by
profitability if the region hopes to increase its
the USDA for both seasonal and year-
food production capacity.
round employees.
36
requirements for the H-2A program in order to encourage • The business that provides the training derives no
the employment of unemployed U.S. citizens. immediate advantage from the activities of the train-
ees, and may in fact be impeded;
Although the H-2A program includes safeguards to
• The trainee is not necessarily entitled to a job at the
protect foreign workers, national farm labor advocates
conclusion of the training period; and
have criticized the structure of the program for allow-
ing exploitation due to the dependence of workers on • The trainee understands he or she is not entitled to
their employers. 14
Advocates have also called for a new wages for the time spent in the training.17
Bills proposing a new federal agricultural guest-worker plans should include such an assessment in their plan-
program have been acted on by both the U.S. House and ning processes.
Senate. In June 2013, the House Judiciary Committee • Given that workforce needs are similar throughout the
approved H.R. 1733, the Agricultural Guestworker Act; no region, a regional conference around food and agricul-
further action has been taken on that bill. Comprehensive ture workforce development could encourage cross-
immigration reform legislation passed by the Senate in state collaborations such as multistate training programs.
2013 — S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity,
and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 — includes
the following provisions related to agricultural labor:
38
BEGINNING FARMERS AND offers an interdisciplinary bachelor of science program
NEW FARM AND FOOD ENTERPRISES through the departments of plant, soil and environmental
sciences; biology; and resource economics and policy.33
40
According to the National Young Farmer’s Coalition, Farm Credit East and Yankee Farm Credit offer the Farm
there is little published data about the number of new Start program, which provides working capital invest-
and beginning farmers who participate in these three ments of up to $50,000, effectively functioning as an
programs.48 The coalition cites the following commonly operating line of credit to farmers who, generally, are in
raised issues with these programs: their first three years of business. In its first five years
(2005–2010), Farm Credit East’s Farm Start program pro-
• Farm Service Agency offices are inconsistent in
vided more than $2.5 million in loans to 65 participants.52
knowledge and ability to work with new and diver-
sified operations;
In addition to offering loans described above that are
• Direct ownership loan requirements around experi- guaranteed by the Farm Service Agency, Farm Credit of
ence disqualify many beginning farmers; Maine also has a Young, Beginning, and Small Borrowers
• Maximum direct ownership loans are too low given the program, which offers crop insurance to beginning farm-
high cost of land in many parts of the country; and ers.53 At Farm Credit East, the Young, Beginning, Small
Farmer Incentive Program provides discounts for up to
• FSA loans take 30 days to process and can take up
five years on FSA-guaranteed loan fees; farm accounting
to a year to release the funds, making them an unre-
and management software; tax preparation; consulting;
alistic financing option for traditional real estate
and interest rate assistance.54
transactions.49
Aggie Bonds U S DA B E G I N N I N G FA R M E R A N D R A N C H E R
At least 17 states have Aggie Bond beginning farmer loan D E V E LO P M E N T P R O G R A M
programs, which encourage lenders to offer reduced rates
The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program
on loans that beginning farmers can use to purchase land,
(BFRDP) provides competitive grants to support training,
farm equipment, farm buildings and breeding livestock.
education, outreach and technical assistance initiatives
Under an Aggie Bond program, a state creates a bond
for beginning farmers or ranchers. In 2012, the program
that allows lenders to earn federally tax-exempt interest
provided more than $18 million through 40 grants. While
on loans to eligible beginning farmers and ranchers. With
its authority and funding expired in 2013, the Beginning
these tax savings, lenders can offer reduced loan rates
Farmer and Rancher Development Program is reautho-
directly to farmers.50 While not limited to beginning farm-
rized in both the House and Senate versions of the next
ers, Maine’s Agricultural Marketing Loan Fund is an Aggie
farm bill.55 Activities covered by the program include
Bond program that encourages new farmers to apply, as
production and management strategies to enhance land
long as they have a business plan and some collateral. The
stewardship; business management and decision support
fund has more than $7 million in bond funds in use, and
strategies that enhance financial viability; marketing strat-
has done 107 projects to date.51
egies that enhance competitiveness; and legal strategies
that assist beginning farmers with farm or land acquisition
Farm Credit
and transfer.
The national Farm Credit System — a nationwide network
of borrower-owned lending institutions and specialized
One example of a project through the Beginning Farmer
service organizations established by Congress in 1916
and Rancher Development Program is the University of
— has three associations that operate in New England:
Connecticut Cooperative Extension System’s three-year
Farm Credit East, which provides services in Connecticut,
project, “Scaling Up — Helping Connecticut’s Beginning
Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island; Yankee
Farmers Evolve from Small-Scale Enterprises into Viable
Farm Credit in Vermont; and Farm Credit of Maine.
Farm Businesses,” which launched in 2012. The project is
(Pending approval by the Farm Credit Administration,
providing training and technical assistance to beginning
Farm Credit East and Farm Credit of Maine plan to merge
farmers in several key areas, including sustainable agricul-
in early 2014.) All three Farm Credit associations in New
ture practices; integrated pest management; farm busi-
England have programs geared specifically toward new
ness management; and farmland access.56
and beginning farmers.
• More rigorous data and evaluation around the impact 2.2 NATURAL RESOURCES AND
and effectiveness of state business planning and farm ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
viability programs for beginning farmers could help
build broader and deeper support for these programs MAXIMIZING ENVIRONMENTAL
from state lawmakers. BENEFITS AND MINIMIZING
• Research is needed on the cost and impact that the
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Maine Agricultural Marketing Loan Fund and state
FROM AGRICULTURE
Aggie Bond beginning farmer loan programs could
have on beginning farm enterprises, and the cost and Introduction
potential impact of such a state-level program in other
New England’s farmers steward more than 4 million acres
New England states.
of land, or 10 percent of the region’s land base. How they
manage this land and other natural resources has an impact
on the region’s environmental health. Well-managed farm-
land can provide valuable environmental services, includ-
ing water filtration, carbon sequestration and habitat for
fish, plants and wildlife. Farmers are subject to a variety of
federal, state and local environmental regulations, such as
42
those pertaining to pesticide use, wetlands protection, funding to the region has been relatively small: $780,000
manure, wastewater and nutrient runoff. Given the envi- in 2012.62 This program is likely to be significantly cur-
ronmental and regulatory challenges that farms face, as tailed or eliminated in the next reauthorization of the
well as the environmental opportunities they offer, state federal farm bill: The Senate version of the 2013 Farm Bill
and federal programs have been established to incen- eliminates the program altogether.63 The House version
tivize adoption of on-farm conservation practices and amends it by eliminating some of the funded conservation
technologies. While interviewees cited the importance of practices and shifting funding from NRCS to USDA’s Risk
these voluntary programs, several also voiced frustration Management Agency.64
with state environmental regulators, and stressed the
need for regulators to communicate regularly with the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
agricultural community. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
provides technical assistance and cost-share assistance
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program legume cover crops as a nitrogen source, and intensive
The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) provides rotational grazing. Contracts are limited to five years and
both technical assistance and up to 75 percent cost- payments are capped at $40,000 per year.73 Nationwide,
share assistance to establish and improve fish and wildlife payments average $18 per acre, but vary considerably
habitat. Agreements generally last from one to 10 years depending on the type of land.74 Because of the relatively
and can award up to $50,000. National priorities for the low payment rates, few producers in the region partici-
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program include: pate in the program; only $710,000 in these contract pay-
ments went to New England producers in 2012.75
• Promoting the restoration of declining or important
native fish and wildlife habitats;
The proposed changes to the Conservation Stewardship
• Protecting, restoring, developing or enhancing fish Program in both the Senate and House farm bills attempt
and wildlife habitat to benefit at-risk species; to make the program easier to use and implement by
• Reducing the impact of invasive species on fish and establishing a “science-based stewardship threshold” for
wildlife habitats; each of the priority resource concerns.76 Both bills place
a greater emphasis on new conservation activities, as
• Protecting, restoring, developing or enhancing declin-
opposed to established and on-going activities. Both ver-
ing or important aquatic wildlife species’ habitats; and
sions also remove the 10 percent enrollment cap on pri-
• Protecting, restoring, developing or enhancing import- vate forestland acreage, which may encourage enrollment
ant migration and other movement corridors for of New England forestland.77
wildlife.
71
44
forestlands. State and local governments, producer asso- and improve the quality of water and wildlife habitat. The
ciations, farmer cooperatives, institutions of higher edu- Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program is run in
cation and nongovernmental organizations are eligible. 78
conjunction with state agencies. Vermont is the only state
in New England with a CREP program.81
Both the Senate and House versions of the 2013 Farm
Bill combine the Cooperative Conservation Partnership Regional Equity
Initiative with other regional programs to create a new Until 2002, federal conservation program funds were allo-
Regional Conservation Partnership Program, which cated to states based on formulas that favored states with
would continue the partnership model to address priority significant acres of farmland in production. Accordingly,
resource concerns. In the newly proposed structure, the New England states received relatively few conserva-
USDA would use a competitive process to select projects tion program dollars. This changed in the 2002 Farm Bill,
and enter into partnership agreements for up to five years with enactment of a regional equity provision designed
to implement a regional or watershed-based conserva- to ensure that historically underserved states, including
tion project. Partners would be expected to contribute a all six New England states, receive at least $15 million
significant portion of the overall costs of the project. The annually in federal working lands conservation program
basic level of funding for the regional projects would be funding. In order to be eligible for this annual minimum,
$110 million per year nationwide. In addition, NRCS would each state must have sufficient approved applications for
be required to set aside for regional conservation projects those programs. It is unclear yet whether the $15 million
about 8 percent of funding or acreage provided by cer- minimum allocation will remain or be replaced in the next
tain conservation programs, including the Environmental farm bill. The Senate version of the bill proposes replacing
Quality Incentive Program, the Conservation Stewardship the fixed minimum allocation with a formula that provides
Program, the Healthy Forest Reserve Program, and regional equity states with a percentage of total conser-
the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. (For vation program funding.82
more information about the Agricultural Conservation
Easement Program, see Increasing Permanent Protection, State Programs
Chapter 1.2.) Between the basic level of funding and the Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and
amount NRCS must set aside, a total of $380 million Vermont currently offer state-level conservation pro-
could be available for regional conservation projects per grams. These programs often work in conjunction with
year nationwide.79 federal conservation programs, helping farmers with the
matching funds required to participate in programs like
Conservation Reserve Program and Conservation EQIP. Accordingly, these programs leverage federal funding,
Reserve Enhancement Program and NRCS often directs farmers to these state programs.83
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) The Connecticut Partnership for Assistance on Agricultural
are administered by the Farm Service Agency. The Waste Management Systems offers technical and finan-
Conservation Reserve Program provides annual rental cial support to address farm waste issues and develop
payments and cost-share assistance to establish long- Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans. These plans
term, resource conserving cover crops on eligible farm- are whole-farm, progressive documents that contain
land. Participants enroll in CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years. records of the current activities on a livestock operation,
Because the Conservation Reserve Program is essentially an evaluation of the existing conditions, and proposals to
a land retirement program, it is not used much in New reduce the risk of negative impacts to the environment
England, where cropland is at a premium. As of October while meeting production goals. For large operations, a
2012, the program covered 27 million acres across the coun- Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan and approval
try, with less than .05 percent of that in New England states.80 or permit may be required. The Partnership team is com-
prised of the Connecticut Department of Agriculture; the
A subset of the Conservation Reserve Program is the Natural Resources Conservation Service; the Farm Service
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which Agency; University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension
focuses on riparian buffers. The enhancement program System; and the Connecticut Department of Energy
pays producers to remove lands along waterways from and Environmental Protection. Eligible producers can
agricultural production, and to plant native grasses, trees receive funding to cover part of the cost of implement-
and other vegetation in order to reduce sediment runoff ing the recommended conservation practices through the
In Vermont, the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets • Given that conservation cost-share assistance under
offers a number of financial and technical assistance the federal Environmental Quality Incentives Program
programs, primarily focused on reducing nutrient runoff typically pays only 50 percent of the cost of imple-
from the state’s dairy farms. As with the Massachusetts menting conservation practices, state conservation
Agricultural Environmental Enhancement Program, cost-share programs have been important in help-
Vermont’s Best Management Practice program can be ing farmers leverage federal dollars. This is especially
coupled with the federal Environmental Quality Incentives important for the region’s dairy farmers, who face sig-
Program to increase cost-share assistance for implement- nificant costs in developing manure storage systems
ing certain conservation practices. Vermont also helps to reduce nutrient runoff. It is important to maintain or
dairy farms develop nutrient management plans, which increase funding for these programs.
are required for many of its dairy farms. Through the Farm • Local soil and water conservation districts typically
Agronomic Practices program, for example, Vermont rely on both state and federal funding. Conservation
reimburses farmers for implementing such best manage- districts play an important role in educating farmers
ment practices as cover cropping, no-till farming and crop and farmland owners about available conservation pro-
rotation. The Alternative Manure Management program grams and resources, and often provide farmers with
provides incentive dollars to farmers interested in imple- the technical support to implement specific practices.
menting new technologies dedicated to enhancing water
quality and improving waste management on the farm.
46
Research and Analysis
loans from the two programs.98 efficiency and/or alternative energy projects to share
their experiences with peers.104
State Programs
Massachusetts
Connecticut
The Massachusetts Farm Energy Program is a joint
The Connecticut Farm Energy Program helps farms and
project of Berkshire-Pioneer Resource Conservation
agriculture-related rural small businesses learn about
and Development Area, Inc., and the Massachusetts
energy efficiency and renewable energy options, and
Department of Agricultural Resources. It offers finan-
provides grant-writing assistance to applicants for fed-
cial incentives of up to $5,000 per farm to reduce con-
eral rural-energy grants.99 It was developed in 2009 as
a partnership between USDA Rural Development and sumption of traditional energy sources and/or replace
the Eastern Connecticut Resource Conservation and old energy systems with renewable energy technology.105
Since its inception in 2008, this program has leveraged
Development Area, Inc.
approximately $4.2 million to help more than 300 farmers
implement energy-saving upgrades. This effort has collec-
Because federal rural energy grants only cover up to 25
tively saved participating farmers roughly $740,000 annu-
percent of a given project, the Connecticut Farm Energy
ally.106 Massachusetts also has specific financial incentives
Program also helps applicants pair those grants with
for deployment of anaerobic digesters.107
other funding sources, such as grants from the state’s
Agriculture Viability Grants Program.100 The Connecticut
In addition, the Massachusetts Farm Energy Program has
Farm Energy Program has helped farmers and other busi-
developed a series of Farm Energy Best Management
ness owners from the state secure more than $410,000
Practices guides that describe various factors farmers
in grants and loans.101 This program also provides farmers
should consider before undertaking energy efficiency and
with useful information about energy upgrades through
renewable energy projects. These guides are organized by
its Energy Best Management Practices Guide. However,
sector — dairy farms, greenhouses and nurseries, maple
due to uncertain funding, the program’s future is unclear. 102
48
anaerobic digester technology at dairy farms in the state.111 farm. (For more information about compost regulations,
Anaerobic digesters contain microbes that break down see chapter 5.) Massachusetts regulations concerning the
cow manure to allow the resulting methane to be recap- compost of waste require operations that bring in off-farm
tured as a fuel source for an electric generator that serves materials to develop a plan, follow guidelines and regis-
farm and nonfarm loads. These digesters substantially ter with the state Department of Agricultural Resources.
reduce farm methane emissions and present the oppor- If the operation does not conform to these guidelines,
tunity to reuse other byproducts of the process, including it must comply with more burdensome requirements
heat and plant fibers. The program currently uses 10,000 from the Department of Environmental Protection’s Site
cows across 12 relatively large dairy farms and generates Assignment Regulations for Solid Waste Facilities.113
16 million kilowatt-hours per year, enough to power 2,200
average Vermont homes. Green Mountain Power custom- Most of the region’s state farmland protection programs
ers can opt to buy all or part of their electric energy from limit the scale of renewable energy projects allowed on
the Cow Power program at a premium of up to 4 cents per protected farms to meeting the energy needs of that
kwh. This premium goes directly to farmers. farm, regardless of whether the renewable energy pro-
duction occurs on productive agricultural land. The ratio-
nale for this limitation is to prevent a protected farm from
O B S TAC L E S
becoming an inviting energy investment, compromising
While federal grants are available for both farm energy its availability for agriculture in the future; the inclusion
efficiency and renewable energy projects, they typically in an easement of an “Option to Purchase at Agricultural
cover less than half of project costs, and only some states Value” as is used in Massachusetts and Vermont, how-
in the region have programs that help farmers offset ever, can mitigate this concern. (For more information,
an additional portion of costs. In addition, coordinating see the Appendix.)
requests to multiple funding programs and undertaking
lengthy application paperwork present practical imped-
iments to farmers and other small business owners con- Action
sidering projects.112 The economics of renewable energy
Support for Existing Programs
projects also may be uncertain or unworkable due to
Federal
high interconnection costs, unpredictable returns from
renewable energy credits, or state utility laws and regu- • Maintain funding at levels adequate to meet demand
lations regarding net metering, which may allow renew- for the Rural Energy Assistance and Environmental
able energy projects to offset farm electric bills, yet limit Quality Incentives programs. The 2013 Senate and
the potential revenues available from selling power to the House farm bills both provide funding for the Rural
electric grid. Energy for America Program, but at levels lower than
the 2008 Farm Bill, which set mandatory funding at
Renewable energy projects often face nonfinancial obsta- $70 million per year for 2011 and 2012. The Senate bill
cles, too. On-farm renewable energy generation can pro- authorizes $48.2 million per year in mandatory fund-
vide economic and environmental benefits that comple- ing, with authority for the appropriation of up to $20
ment and support agricultural uses. However, solar, wind million per year. The House bill provides no mandatory
and methane digester projects — especially those that funding but does authorize appropriations up to $45
produce energy beyond what the farm needs — may face million annually.114
local zoning limitations. Some of these limitations, espe-
cially around solar “farms,” address reasonable concerns State
regarding long-term conversion of productive agricultural
• Maintain funding for state farm energy programs at
land to commercial energy use.
levels adequate to meet demand.
• Investigate policy mechanisms to align utility energy The federal SECURE Water Act, enacted in 2009, requires
audit and efficiency programs, interconnection require- the U.S. Geological Survey to establish a “national water
ments, and net metering regulations with farm needs. availability and assessment program.”115 The director must
prepare and maintain “a comprehensive national water-
Policy Options use inventory” and determine “indicators that reflect
each status and trend relating to the availability of water
• Encourage creating state-level farm energy programs
resources in the United States.”116 The director must pro-
in states without such programs.
vide a report every five years detailing, among other
• Consider funding state-level farm energy programs things, “the withdrawal and use of surface water and
through systems benefit charges billed to ratepayers groundwater by various sectors, including the agricultural
or through state renewable energy funds. sector.”117 This program provides a basic idea of how much
• Consider creating an ombudsman in each state to help water is available regionally and how much of that is being
farm businesses identify and develop applications for used for agriculture.
sources of grant funding.
Some New England states have undertaken inventories
• Consider further legislative and regulatory efforts to
of their own for planning purposes. In Massachusetts, for
expand incentives for energy efficiency and renewable
example, the Sustainable Water Management Initiative
energy projects that are specifically tailored to farm
has produced a detailed study of water availability and a
and food business applications and support deploy-
recommendation for a safe yield — the amount that can
ment of innovative technologies like high-efficiency
be extracted from a water body without causing drought
processing equipment and anaerobic digesters.
or other ecological harm.118 In Rhode Island, the Water
Resources Board inventories water availability, and the
Division of Agriculture monitors stream flow with an eye
to avoiding drought conditions for farmers.119
ACCESS TO WATER
To provide a demand-centered view of water use, many
Introduction states also require that water users report how much
water they withdraw; however, these data present an
While New England is considered a region with plentiful incomplete picture, and farmers are often exempt from
water, accessing safe and reliable quantities of water pres- reporting requirements.120
ents challenges to farmers in some areas. Residential and
industrial water demands have led to intense competition.
W I T H D R AWA L
Extraction of both surface and ground water for any use
has an impact on watersheds and regional ecology, as In most New England states, riparian doctrine governs
improperly managed withdrawal can cause drought and water allocation.121 Under this doctrine, ownership of
harm to ecosystems. Given the effects of over-extraction, riparian land conveys the right to use adjacent water in
state and local governments have implemented rules and a “reasonable” manner.122 Determining what is reasonable
regulations around water withdrawals, which can affect involves consideration of the purpose of the use, the suit-
the use and cost of water by farms. ability of the use to the water body, and the social and
50
economic value of the use.123 Due to the complexity of this
determination, most states require that owners get per- Action
mits to use surface water. 124
The right to use groundwater
Research and Analysis
varies much more significantly from state to state. Most
commonly, the owner of the overlying land has a right to • States that have not done so already may want to
reasonable use of groundwater.125 undertake a comprehensive planning process to
better understand their water resources. Specifically,
Some permitting programs are far from comprehensive. states should identify sustainable yields from all water
Connecticut’s Diversion Act generally requires permits sources, especially those drawn on for agricultural use.
for water extraction but contains broad exemptions, Massachusetts has a strong example for designing and
most notably grandfathering pre-1982 water uses. 126
A implementing this process in the Sustainable Water
report from Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Management Initiative, which other states could look
Environmental Protection has noted that “the vast major- to for a model. States can only effectively avoid harm-
ity of Connecticut’s water diversions are grandfathered,” ful drought conditions in times of intense local com-
preventing the state “from developing and implementing petition for water if they understand what constitutes
a comprehensive water allocation program.” 127 sustainable yields.
ated by the Smith-Lever Act of 1914.133 Federal funding has • Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
been supplemented by states, but decades of declining Program;
public resources for these functions at both the federal
• Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program
and state level have affected the region’s agricultural com-
(for more information, see Human Resources, section
petitiveness. Calls for renewed investments in research,
2.1 in this chapter);
development and education are beginning to be heeded
at the state level, with a greater emphasis on public- • Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative;
these issues.134
NIFA provides funding to land-grant uni- State agricultural experiment stations were created
versities and competitively granted funds to researchers through the Hatch Act of 1887 and are funded through
in land-grant and other universities in several ways.135 In a combination of federal formula funds, federal compet-
fiscal year 2012, total funding to the National Institute of itive research grants, state appropriations and industry
Food and Agriculture was approximately $1.3 billion.136 support. Every New England state has an experiment sta-
tion, and services offered to farmers differ by state. The
Many of the institute’s grant priorities and programs are Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, for instance,
important to New England agriculture, and researchers at provides soil testing services and research related to plant
many of the region’s public and private universities and productivity, plant pests and diseases.140 Federal funds
its state agricultural experiment stations have received must be matched one-to-one with nonfederal funds.
NIFA grants.137 One of the competitive grant programs
within the National Institute of Food and Agriculture A new emphasis by USDA on multistate research has
is the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, which helped foster closer collaboration among some of the
currently is focused on several challenges, including region’s experiment stations. A new Northern New
keeping American agriculture competitive while ending England Collaborative Research Funding Program, com-
world hunger; improving nutrition and ending childhood prised of the Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine sta-
obesity; improving food safety for all Americans; secur- tions, was established in 2012 to catalyze coordinated
ing America’s energy future; and mitigating and adapt- regional research on high priority needs.141
ing to climate change.138 The following competitive grant
52
On average, federal money accounts for 30 percent or less organizations and communities are also eligible to apply.
of total funding for agricultural experiment stations, while In 2013, Northeast SARE awarded $2.4 million in grants.147
state funding comprises a significant remainder of their
budgets.142 In the past few years, several New England
C O O P E R AT I V E E X T E N S I O N
states have either threatened to or actually cut their exper-
iment station budgets.143 For example, in Connecticut, Created through the 1914 Smith-Lever Act, the coopera-
more than 60 percent of the agricultural experiment sta- tive extension service is a partnership between USDA and
tion’s budget is comprised of state funding, which has the land-grant university system. Extension was estab-
been in jeopardy recently.144 In 2011, during negotiations lished to develop, demonstrate and spread existing or new
with state employee unions, Gov. Dannel Malloy intro- practices and technologies around agriculture, especially
duced a budget that, among other cuts, completely elimi- those developed through state land-grant universities and
nated the agricultural experiment station. Union members agricultural experiment stations. Every New England state
and the governor came to an agreement and the cuts has a cooperative extension service that undertakes a
were avoided, but the situation demonstrated the unclear variety of agricultural research and educational activities.
future for these institutions. Declining USDA support for Agriculture-related services offered by extension around
agricultural experiment stations has led stations to look the region include:
for other federal funding sources. In 1970, USDA provided • Research and education about livestock health and
70 percent of all federal funds dispersed to experiment processing; plant pests; integrated pest management;
stations; by 2004, the department covered less than 50 pasture management; and production systems;
percent of federal funds for agricultural experiment sta-
• Programming related to farm transfer, farmland access
tions.145 Some interviewees believe that this increased reli-
and land conservation; and
ance by agricultural experiment stations on nontraditional
funding sources has changed their research focus and • New farmer training and support.
resulted in less attention paid to issues and concerns of
local farmers. Several of the region’s extension services also have signif-
icant programming around food safety, health and nutri-
Increased federal and state baseline funding for agri- tion and youth development.148
cultural experiment stations would enable agricultural
experiment stations to remain focused on state-specific Federal formula funding for state extension programs
production challenges. And continuing research around has been declining, requiring state extension services
production challenges and technologies will be crucial to be more dependent on federal competitive grants.149
to increasing regional food production, especially given Federal formula also requires a one-to-one nonfederal
climate change and the region’s higher-than-average pro- match, making state funding essential to the viability of
duction costs. Public investments in research and devel- each cooperative extension service. State support for
opment have been demonstrated to result in agricultural extension, however, has also waned over the decades, and
sector growth. Studies have consistently found high rates several interviewees for this project cited the loss of tra-
of return on public agricultural research, ranging from 20 ditional agricultural extension agents as a limiting factor
to 60 percent annually.146 in increasing the region’s food production capacity. For
example, state funding used to account for more than 40
percent of the University of New Hampshire cooperative
N O R T H E A S T S U S TA I N A B L E AG R I C U LT U R E
extension’s budget. In 2011 this state allocation was cut by
R E S E A R C H A N D E D U C AT I O N P R O G R A M
23 percent, a reduction of $1.7 million. Two years later the
The regional branch of the national Sustainable Agriculture New Hampshire legislature restored funding for the uni-
Research and Education program is Northeast SARE. versity system — including extension and the Agricultural
It serves the 12 Northeast states and Washington, D.C., Experiment Station — to pre-2011 levels, but because they
and provides a range of grants to projects that “explore both rely heavily on state funding, these entities remain at
and address key issues affecting the sustainability and risk.150 With a loss of staff and resources, New Hampshire’s
future economic viability of agriculture.” Grants are not extension service has been forced to look for alterna-
restricted to research institutions; depending upon the tive funding sources, such as grants, contracts, gifts and
grant, farmers, agricultural service providers, nonprofit fees, which will likely result in greater specialization and
where none remains in their own state,152 and extension • Establishing a food safety education program.
services are collaborating more closely in this regard.
An informal regional network of state extension services The initiative would focus in part on “controlled environ-
exists, and the groups making up this network meet fre- ment” agriculture, a potential source of significant food
quently. They also coordinate regional events such as the production in the region. While the greenhouse and nurs-
New England Fruit and Vegetable Conference. ery industry comprises half of the agricultural sector in
Connecticut, it is challenged by regional, national and
In Massachusetts, the Agricultural Innovation Center was • Continued and sustained federal and state investments
also a virtual center, investing $2.7 million in a number of in agricultural research and extension will be increas-
large-scale projects aimed at improving output and devel- ingly important as the region’s producers face a chang-
oping new business opportunities. One round of grants ing and volatile climate. According to a report released
was made through the program in 2007.155 in 2013 by the Massachusetts-based Manomet Center,
New England agriculture will likely need the following
The Connecticut Governor’s Council on Agricultural climate change adaptation strategies:
Development is currently exploring an Agricultural »» Modifications to livestock buildings to address heat
Innovation Initiative centered at the University of stress;
Connecticut to help advance and diversify agriculture.
»» Adjustments to livestock diets and feeding patterns
While still in development, the following areas have been to address heat stress;
identified as having the greatest need and potential impact:
»» New management techniques for plant pest
pressures;
54
»» Different crop varieties better suited to the chang- a period of years. These programs fall loosely under the
ing environment; and term “farm viability” programs.
»» New technologies and techniques to address climate
change impacts associated with specific crops, such
as new sap collection technology for maple trees Discussion
and water management needs for cranberry bogs.157
FA R M V I A B I L I T Y P R O G R A M S
• Growers will also need research and extension invest-
ments to help them comply with new production prac- Connecticut
tices, record-keeping and tests required in the pro- Through the Farm Transition program, the Connecticut
posed Food Safety Modernization Act. Department of Agriculture offers grants of less than
$50,000 to:
• A number of smaller federal farm bill research programs
— including the Specialty Crop Research Initiative; the • Provide support to farmers enhancing their agricul-
Organic Research and Education Initiative; and the tural operation and marketing strategies to increase
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program profits;
— are valuable to the region, but are not mandatory • Help farmers diversify, transition into new production
programs and therefore have no budget unless they areas and/or expand existing production; and
are reauthorized in a new farm bill.
• Support educational activities that help farmers
diversify or transition toward new products or new
Policy Options
market areas.158
• A new emphasis is needed in federal and state research
around controlled environmental agriculture and A different program, the Farm Reinvestment Grant pro-
opportunities for year-round food production. A sig- gram, is designed to provide funding for capital enhance-
nificant research initiative, such as that contemplated ments to farms. The funds may be used to expand existing
by the Connecticut Governor’s Council on Agricultural agricultural facilities, or to diversify or expand into new
Development, could benefit the entire region, and col- production areas and site improvements related to such
laboration among states and with the USDA could help expansion or diversification. The program provides com-
raise additional research resources. petitive grants of up to $40,000.159
Maine
The Maine Farms for the Future Program offers both busi-
BUSINESS PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE ness planning assistance and grants to implement ele-
ments of the business plans. Eligible farmers receive help
Introduction creating a business plan, and then can apply for a grant
of up to $25,000 to implement some aspect of the plan.
Over the past few decades, New England agriculture has In exchange, farmers must sign a covenant agreeing not
transitioned from being a sector largely oriented around to develop their farmland for seven years. The grants can
wholesale markets to one with more market diversifica- be used to invest in infrastructure, equipment or land to
tion and greater emphasis on direct-to-retail and val- increase the viability of the operation.160 A program eval-
ue-added opportunities. With this shift has come a need uation found 66 percent of participants reported a net
for expanded business planning and for capital to support increase in profits after completion of the program.161
the processing and marketing infrastructure necessary to
capture these new opportunities. State departments of Massachusetts
agriculture have devoted significant resources in this area, The Farm Viability Enhancement Program, the first pro-
largely through programs that provide business planning gram of its kind in the region, helps participants develop
assistance to farmers, and, in some cases, grants to imple- and implement farm viability plans. In the first phase, the
ment aspects of the business plans. Where grant funds are program provides technical and business planning assis-
made available, farms are typically required in exchange tance to expand, upgrade and modernize existing agricul-
to agree to a nondevelopment covenant on their land for tural operations. In the second phase, farmers can access
capital to implement the improvements recommended in
acres protected, number of jobs that would be generated, Island grown agricultural products and local seafood;
and needs identified in the business plan.164 • Provide financial and technical assistance support to
organizations and farmers for activities and programs
New Hampshire which enhance the economic viability of local agricul-
In 2005, the New Hampshire legislature authorized a Farm ture, and support the development of a locally based,
Viability Task Force to study and recommend policies and safe and sustainable food system;
actions to promote the agricultural sector. Among the
• Provide individual farm grants to small or beginning
task force recommendations was the creation of a farm
Rhode Island farmers that support the entry or sus-
viability program to support agricultural operations with
tainability within the respective industry;
business planning and capital investments. The proposal
mirrored the Massachusetts program and would make use • Work with the state department of health to further
of temporary land-use covenants in exchange for funding develop and support food safety related programs and
to implement a farm business plan developed with expert standards pertaining to local agriculture and seafood;
• Research, promotion, marketing or trade enhance- its and eligible farmers may apply for grants of up to
education;
Vermont
• Projects having to do with nutrition, food safety, food
Vermont’s Farm Viability Enhancement Program offers
security, plant health, product development, education
business planning and technical assistance to enrolled
or “buy local” initiatives; and
farmers through farm business planners from partner
• Programs that provide for increased consumption and organizations. Farmers and planning consultants meet
innovation, improved efficiency and reduced costs of and work together for approximately one year to pro-
duce a written business plan. In the second year, farmers
56
receive additional technical assistance and help updating equipment costs such as processing, storage or distribu-
their plans. When funding is available, farmers who have tion; to put toward long-term working capital; or for other
completed business plans with the program are eligible collaborative ventures that would open new markets or
for grants of up to $8,000 that they can put toward capi- build capacity within the supply chain.171
tal expenses or additional technical support to implement
the plan.168 Surveys conducted after the completion of the
business plan and at the end of a second year show posi-
Action
tive results: For farmers who completed plans in 2010, the Support for Existing Programs
average gross income increased 38 percent in the year
• State farm viability and other business development
after completing their business plan.169
programs have been effective in fostering new agricul-
ture business models and opportunities, and in lever-
A separate program, the Working Lands Enterprise
aging significant private investments in on-farm agri-
Initiative, was created in the 2012 legislative session. For
cultural infrastructure.
fiscal year 2013, the initiative invested $1 million in agri-
cultural and forest based businesses through three grant
Research and Analysis
programs. Investment decisions are made by a 12-person
board composed of three state agency heads and nine • States differ in their level of impact analysis around
appointed industry representatives. The goals of the farm and food business development programs, with
enterprise fund are to: some states documenting the impact that each of
their programs has on economic growth, job creation
• Stimulate economic development in the agriculture
and farm profitability. More robust program evalua-
and forest product sectors by advancing entrepre-
tions could help build public and political support for
neurism, business development and job creation;
these programs.
• Increase the value of raw and value-added products by
developing in-state and export markets; Policy Options
• Attract a new generation of entrepreneurs to • The Vermont Working Lands Enterprise Fund offers
Vermont’s farm, food system, forest and value-added an interesting model of state investment in agricul-
chain by facilitating more affordable access to the tural business and job creation, providing funding to
working landscape; and both individual farm operations as well as to statewide
• Increase the amount of state investment in working high-impact projects.
lands enterprises.170
• In states with programs that provide business imple-
mentation grants in exchange for a nondevelop-
The initiative includes three grant opportunities. Enterprise
ment covenant, consider a course similar to the
Investments provide grants between $3,000 and $15,000
Massachusetts Agricultural Investment Program, which
to new or growing businesses, and offer business and tech-
provides grants for business planning and implemen-
nical assistance and infrastructure development to pro-
tation to permanently protected farms that would not
ducers. Working Lands “Service Provider” grants between
otherwise be eligible for the program. To qualify, farms
$10,000 and $100,000 are available to nonprofits, asso-
should be required to document public benefits asso-
ciations and colleges that address workforce needs and/
ciated with the investment.
or offer training; technical assistance; needs assessments;
product research; marketing assistance; market develop-
ment; business and financial planning; or access to cap-
ital. Working Lands “Capital and Infrastructure” invest-
ment grants between $15,000 and $100,000 are available
RISK MANAGEMENT
to producers and nonprofit organizations, including food
hubs, farmers’ markets and shared processing facilities, Introduction
for capital investments to increase operational capacity
Farming is an inherently risky business, and is likely to
and influence the industry beyond their immediate busi-
become riskier with a changing climate and more severe
ness. Funding can be used to pay specialized personnel;
weather events. Government plays an important role in
to acquire land or easements; to pay for building and
losses, but does not pay for shallow losses, which can rep- a floor for farm milk prices through the purchase by
resent a farm’s profit margin for the year. Crop insurance USDA of dairy products at set prices;
is also not available for certain specialty crops, such as let- • Dairy Import Tariff Rate Quotas, which limit the import
tuce, broccoli and spinach. In part for these reasons, spe- of lower-priced foreign dairy products; and
cialty crops comprise only about 5 percent of crop insur-
• Dairy Export Incentive Program, which subsidizes
ance premiums despite accounting for nearly 22 percent
dairy product exports.
of farm crash receipts.173 The Risk Management Agency
has been working to improve its Adjusted Gross Revenue
The Milk Income Loss Contract program (MILC) was the
and Adjusted Gross Revenue-Lite insurance products,
fifth dairy program in the 2008 Farm Bill that expired at
which in theory are attractive for New England’s diversi-
the end of September 2013. In the suite of federal dairy
fied farms because they cover multiple crops under one
programs, it was arguably the most important to New
policy and cover up to 35 percent of farm revenue from
England’s dairy farmers. The MILC program provided
livestock and livestock products.174 However, neither insur-
farm income support by giving participating dairy farm-
ance product is used much in New England; fewer than 40
ers a payment whenever the fluid milk price fell below a
producers in the region purchased either product for the
certain target price. Payments were limited to the first
2013 crop year.175
3 million pounds of milk production per farm (equal to
about 150 cows) annually, which limited payments to the
region’s larger dairy producers. An important addition
to the program, though, in 2008 was a “feed adjuster,”
58
which allowed the MILC payment rate to rise if and when M A I N E T I E R E D DA I R Y
feed costs rose.178 In the eleven years of the MILC program, S TA B I L I Z AT I O N P R O G R A M
payments to New England dairy farmers totaled $162
The Tiered Dairy Stabilization Program, established in
million.179
2004, pays farmers directly from the state’s general fund
when the market price received for milk falls below cost of
The Senate version of the 2013 Farm Bill eliminates MILC,
production. A producer’s target price depends on which
the Dairy Product Price Support Program and the Dairy
of four production range tiers he or she is in. All producers
Export Incentive Program, and replaces them with two
begin in the first tier at the beginning of the year. Some
new programs: a Dairy Production Margin Protection
move into the second, third and fourth levels of produc-
Program and a Dairy Market Stabilization Program. These
tion fairly quickly, while others never get out of the first
two programs are intended to work in tandem. The Dairy
tier. Since the program gets its resources from the general
Production Margin Protection Program is an income-sup-
fund, it is subject to the state budget process. Milk han-
port program based on the margin between the national
dling fees, collected by the Maine Revenue Service, are
average all-milk price and a formula-derived estimate of
sent to the general fund. Since 2007, at least $30 million
feed costs, and the Dairy Market Stabilization Program
has been paid to milk producers through this program.
acts as a supply-management program by reducing pay-
The state legislature has frequently imposed an annual
ments to producers when the margin falls below statutory
cap on program expenditures; in 2010 and 2011, the pro-
thresholds. For smaller dairy producers, the Senate bill
gram was capped annually at $13.3 million.182
provides additional margin protection on the first 4 million
pounds of production (about 200 cows). New England
M A S S AC H U S E T T S DA I R Y FA R M
producers and dairy cooperatives are generally support-
I N C O M E TA X C R E D I T
ive of the Senate-passed bill.180 The House bill includes the
Dairy Production Margin Protection Program but not the Established in 2008 to offset the cyclical downturns in
Dairy Market Stabilization Program; for that reason, many milk prices paid to dairy farmers, the Dairy Farm Income
of the region’s dairy farmers oppose the House version of Tax Credit is activated every month that the Federal Milk
the farm bill. Marketing Order’s price drops below a trigger price estab-
lished by the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural
Because federal policy has not been effective in stabiliz- Resources. This trigger price is calculated from monthly
ing fluid milk prices or providing a meaningful safety net costs-of-production figures, including hired labor and
for dairy farmers when milk prices are especially low, sev- some portion of the value of unpaid labor; the amount of
eral states have stepped in to create state-level safety net credit is based on volume of milk production. The credit is
programs. These programs are described below. received when farmers file their annual taxes, and the pool
of available credit is capped at $4 million a year.
C O N N E C T I C U T AG R I C U LT U R A L
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y AC C O U N T Action
In 2009, Connecticut earmarked $10 of a $40 statewide
Support for Existing Programs
deed recording fee imposed through the Community
Investment Act to fund an Agricultural Sustainability • State-level programs providing income support for
Account, which provides grants to dairy farmers according dairy farmers appear to be having a positive impact
to a formula based on the difference between the regional on farm profitability. Continued support for these pro-
all-milk price and 82 percent of the cost of production. grams is important to keep dairy farms viable and the
Grants are based on monthly production levels, and pay- land they steward in farming.
ments will be prorated if there are insufficient funds in the
account to cover all producer payments.181 Research and Analysis
Policy Options
Federal
60
ENDNOTES
1
While the authors acknowledge the growing importance of aquaculture to the region’s food production capacity,
aquaculture production is not addressed extensively in this report.
2
The Hands That Feed Us: Challenges and Opportunities for Workers Along the Food Chain, Food Chain Workers
Alliance 1 (June 6, 2012), http://foodchainworkers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Hands-That-Feed-Us-Report.pdf.
3
2007 Census of Agriculture, USDA Nat’l Agric. Statistics Serv.,
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf.
4
Knowledge Exchange Report: Northeast Agriculture and Farm Labor: The Case for an Effective Agricultural Guest
Worker Program, Farm Credit East 5 (Jan. 2011), http://www.ct.gov/doag/lib/doag/boards_commissions_councils/gcf/06_
farm_credit_east_2011_knowledge_exchange_report_northeast_agriculture_and_farm_labor.pdf.
5
Strategic Plan Network Vermont Food System Atlas: Annual Report 2012 6, Farm to Plate Investment Program
(Jan. 17, 2013), http://www.vsjf.org/assets/files/Agriculture/F2P%20Annual%20Report_January%202013.pdf.
6
Matt Magnusson & Ross Gittell, Home Grown: The Economic Impact of Local Food Systems in New Hampshire Current
Status and Prospects for Growth 2, Food Solutions New England (2012)
http://agriculture.nh.gov/publications/documents/HomeGrownReport_final.pdf.
7
Knowledge Exchange Report: Northeast Agriculture and Farm Labor: The Case for an Effective Agricultural Guest
Worker Program, Farm Credit East 4 (Jan. 2011), http://www.ct.gov/doag/lib/doag/boards_commissions_councils/gcf/06_
farm_credit_east_2011_knowledge_exchange_report_northeast_agriculture_and_farm_labor.pdf.
8
Ne. Dairy Farmers Coop. Newsletter, Aug. 2, 2013,
http://grayandoscar.com/newsletters/2013-08/NDFC_E-letter_August_02_2013.pdf.
9
Public Policy Issues in 2013 2, Farm Credit East, https://www.farmcrediteast.com/~/media/Files/Legislative%20
Corner/6-2013%20FCE%20Public%20Policy%20Handout.ashx (June 2013).
10
H-2A Temporary Agricultural Program Details, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Employment and Training Admin.,
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/h_2a_details.cfm (last visited Nov. 26, 2012).
11
Id.
12
Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) Performance Data, U.S. Dep’t of Labor,
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/performancedata.cfm (last visited Nov. 25, 2013).
13
20 C.F.R. § 655.120 (2013).
14
H-2A Guestworker Program, Farmworker Justice, http://farmworkerjustice.org/content/h-2a-guestworker-program
(last visited June 19, 2013).
15
Elizabeth Henderson & Jack Bradigan Spula, Building the Movement: Labor in the Northeast Food System 2—5, North-
east Sustainable Agric. Working Grp. (2011), http://api.ning.com/files/8n9EDb6iFgMgu38nVcHtu34baX9qj9S9jv2FcYV
F3uEAF*ENcIhx6hQjBqhKUD80*GQ370vxUoVbrxgA-za6lmC84GvXdoFC/WorkersintheNEFoodSystemOct2011.pdf.
16
Personal Communication with Kelly Erwin, Mass. Farm to School Project (Aug. 6 & 7, 2013).
17
Fact Sheet #12: Agricultural Employers Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, U.S. Dep’t of Labor (2008),
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs12.pdf.
18
Labor Law and Management Tipsheets: Farm Apprenticeships 5, Comty. Involved in Sustaining Agric. (2010),
http://www.buylocalfood.org/upload/resource/Labor.farmapprenticeshipsfinal.pdf.
19
Id.
20
Charting a Path: Food System Workforce Needs Assessment 1, Farm to Plate Network (Mar. 2013),
http://www.vsjf.org/assets/files/Agriculture/Strat_Plan/Charting%20a%20Path_03_18_13.pdf.
21
Id. at 2.
22
Grow Connecticut Farms: Developing, Diversifying, and Promoting Agriculture 41, Governor’s Council for Agric. Dev.,
(Dec. 2012) http://www.ct.gov/doag/lib/doag/boards_commissions_councils/gcf/grow_ct_farms_3_6_2013_low.pdf.
23
Charting a Path: Food System Workforce Needs Assessment 29, Farm to Plate Network (Mar. 2013),
http://www.vsjf.org/assets/files/Agriculture/Strat_Plan/Charting%20a%20Path_03_18_13.pdf.
24
Alex Risley Schroeder, Local Food, Local Jobs: Job Growth and Creation in the Pioneer Valley Food System 6, Mass.
Workforce Alliance (Feb. 2013),
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/agr/boards-commissions/mwa-food-report-03062013-screen.pdf.
26
Ne. Dairy Farmers Coop. Newsletter, supra note 8.
27
Agricultural Labor Reform, Comparison of House and Senate Bills, Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n,
http://www.fb.org/index.php?action=issues.aglabor_bills.
28
Cris Coffin et al., American Farmland Trust & Land For Good, What We Know (And Don’t Know) About New England
Farmland, presentation given at Keep New England Farming Regional Convening (May 8, 2013), available at
http://www.farmland.org/documents/whatweknowandwelcome.pdf.
29
Nationally, 30 percent of farm operators are “beginning,” which is defined as having fewer than 10 years farming
experience. Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, USDA Econ. Research Serv. (May 2009), http://www.ers.usda.gov/publica-
tions/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib53.aspx#.Uii2sMakrzI. The figure for New England is 32 percent. 2007 Census
of Agriculture, USDA Nat’l Agric. Statistics Serv., http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf
(last visited Nov. 26, 2013).
30
2007 Census of Agriculture, USDA Nat’l Agric. Statistics Serv., http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/
Full_Report/usv1.pdf (last visited Dec. 23, 2013).
31
Beginning farmers make up 24 percent of local food producers across the country. Sarah A. Low & Stephen Vogel,
Direct and Intermediated Marketing of Local Foods in the United States 11, USDA Econ. Research Serv., (Nov. 2011), http://
www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err128.aspx#.UiZhpjakrzI.
32
See Lindsey Lusher Shute, Building a Future With Farmers 20, Nat’l Young Farmer Coal. (Nov. 2011), http://www.
youngfarmers.org/reports/Building_A_Future_With_Farmers.pdf; Adequate Land Ranks as Top Concern of Young Farm-
ers, Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n (Mar. 7, 2013), http://www.fb.org/index.php?action=newsroom.news&year=2013&file=nr0307.
html; Farmers on the Edge, GrowNYC (2011), http://www.grownyc.org/files/gmkt/farmers_on_the_edge.pdf.
33
Sustainable Agriculture Program, Univ. of Me., http://umaine.edu/sag/bachelor-of-science-in-sag/
(last visited Nov. 26, 2013).
34
E-mail Communication with Lorraine Merrill, Comm’r, N.H. Department of Agriculture (Nov. 2013).
35
Jens Manuel Krogstad, Colleges See Higher Demand for Degrees in Agriculture, USA TODAY, Aug. 5, 2012,
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2012-08-01/agriculture-industry-studies-surge/56809406/1.
36
Agricultural Learning Center, Univ. of Mass. Amherst, http://ag.umass.edu/agricultural-learning-center
(last visited June 25, 2013).
37
Farmer Training Program, Univ. of Vt., http://learn.uvm.edu/sustainability/farmer-training/ (last visited Nov. 26, 2012).
38
Vermont New Farmer Project, Univ. of Vt., http://www.uvm.edu/newfarmer/ (last visited Nov. 26, 2012).
39
Green School, UMASS Extension, http://extension.umass.edu/turf/education/green-school (last visited Jan. 10, 2014).
40
E-mail Communication with John Harker, Director of Market Development, Me. Department of Agriculture,
Conservation and Forestry (Nov. 2013).
41
Id.
42
Matching Enterprise Grants for Agriculture Program, Mass. Dep’t of Agric. Resources,
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/agr/about/divisions/mega.html (last visited Nov. 26, 2013).
43
Impacts of the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program 8, Am. Farmland Trust (2013), http://www.farmlandinfo.org/
sites/default/files/AFT_IMPACT%20of%20FED%20FARM%20RANCH%20PRO_FINAL_singles%20%284%29_0.pdf.
44
Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Loans, USDA Farm Serv. Agency,
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=fmlp&topic=bfl (last visited Nov. 24, 2012).
45
Id.
46
Id.
47
USDA Finalizes New Microloan Program, USDA Farm Serv. Agency, Farm Service Agency Newsroom, Jan. 15, 2013,
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsReleases?area=newsroom&subject=landing&topic=ner&newstype=newsrel&type=de-
tail&item=nr_20130115_rel_0010.html.
48
Lindsey Lusher Shute, Building a Future With Farmers: Challenges Faced by Young, American Farmers and a National
Strategy to Help Them Succeed 23, Nat’l Young Farmer’s Coal. (Nov. 2011), http://www.youngfarmers.org/reports/
Building_A_Future_With_Farmers.pdf.
49
Id. at 33.
62
50
The following states have Aggie Bond programs: Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minne-
sota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Washington.
Types of State Agricultural Finance Programs, Nat’l Council of State Agric. Finance Programs, http://www.stateagfinance.
org/# (last visited Nov. 26, 2013).
51
E-mail Communication with John Harker, supra note 40; see also Me. Dep’t of Agric., Conservation, and Forestry
webpage, http://www.maine.gov/dacf/ard/grants/agricultural_marketing.shtml.
52
Farm Start: Celebrating Five Years, Farm Credit East 4,https://www.farmcrediteast.com/Products-and-Services/~/
media/Files/ProductServices/FarmCreditEastFarmStart5yrBroch_final.ashx (last visited Nov. 27, 2012).
53
Young, Beginning, and Small Borrowers, Farm Credit of Me., https://www.farmcreditmaine.com/Our-Cooperative/
Industry-Support/Young-Beginning-Small-Borrowers.aspx (last visited Nov. 27, 2012).
54
Young, Beginning, Small Farmer Incentive program, Farm Credit East, https://www.farmcrediteast.com/en/
Products-and-Services/Young-Beginning-Small-Farmer-Incentive-Program.aspx (last visited Nov. 27, 2012).
55
Program Synopsis: Beginning Farmers and Rancher, USDA Nat’l. Inst. of Food and Agric.,
http://www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/bfrdp/bfrdp_synopsis.html (last visited Nov. 25, 2012).
56
Interview by Ben Bowell with Jiff Martin, Sustainable Food Systems, UConn Coop. Extension (Nov. 27, 2012).
57
The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition recommends that mandatory funding be increased to $25 million per
year. Farming for the Future: A Sustainable Agriculture Agenda for the 2012 Food & Farm Bill 18, Nat’l Sustainable Agric.
Coal., http://sustainableagriculture.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/2012_3_21NSACFarmBillPlatform.pdf.
58
Building a Future With Farmers: Challenges Faced by Young, American Farmers and a National Strategy to Help Them
Succeed 32, Nat’l Young Farmers Coal. (Nov. 2011),
http://www.youngfarmers.org/reports/Building_A_Future_With_Farmers.pdf.
59
Guide to Financing the Community Supported Farm 49, Univ. of Vt. Cntr. for Sustainable Agric. (2012),
http://www.uvm.edu/newfarmer/business/finance-guide/Intro.pdf.
60
Technical Service Providers, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Serv.,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/technical/tsp/ (last visited Nov. 26, 2013).
61
Partnerships, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Serv.,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/people/partners/.
62
The total funding to New England for fiscal year 2012 was based on total obligations, and includes technical and
financial assistance. Agricultural Management Assistance, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Serv.,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/ama/ (last visited Dec. 4, 2012).
63
S. 3240, 112th Cong. § 11024 (2012), available at
http://www.ag.senate.gov/issues/agriculture-reform-food-and-jobs-act-of-2012.
64
H.R. 2642, 113th Cong. § 2506 (2013), available at
http://agriculture.house.gov/sites/republicans.agriculture.house.gov/files/pdf/legislation/HR2642.pdf.
65
Fact Sheet: Environmental Quality Incentives Program, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Serv.,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_007742.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 2012).
66
H.R. 2642, 113th Cong. § 2201 (2013), available at http://agriculture.house.gov/sites/republicans.agriculture.house.gov/
files/pdf/legislation/HR2642.pdf; S. 3240, 112th Cong. § 2201 (2012), available at
http://www.ag.senate.gov/issues/agriculture-reform-food-and-jobs-act-of-2012.
67
See USDA Announces Recipients of Conservation Innovation Grants in 40 States, USDA (Aug. 22, 2011),
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2011/08/0373.xml.
68
Conservation Innovation Grant Program 5, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Serv.,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044415.pdf (last visited Nov. 26, 2013).
69
2012 Conservation Innovation Grant Awardees, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Serv., http://www.nrcs.usda.
gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/financial/cig/?cid=stelprdb1048721 (last visited Nov. 26, 2013).
70
Fact Sheet: Environmental Quality Incentives Program Seasonal High Tunnel Initiative, USDA Natural Resources Con-
servation Serv., http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046338.pdf (last visited Jan. 20, 2014); see
also Fact Sheet: Environmental Quality Incentives Program Organic Initiative, USDA Natural Res. Conservation Serv.,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046336.pdf (last visited Jan. 10, 2014).
71
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Serv., http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/financial/whip/?cid=nrcs143_008423 (last visited Dec. 4, 2012).
72
H.R. 2642, 113th Cong. § 2707 (2013), available at http://agriculture.house.gov/sites/republicans.agriculture.house.gov/
files/pdf/legislation/HR2642.pdf; S. 3240, 112th Cong. § 2707 (2012), available at http://www.ag.senate.gov/issues/agricul-
ture-reform-food-and-jobs-act-of-2012.
74
Conservation Stewardship Program, Nat’l Sustainable Agric. Coal., http://sustainableagriculture.net/publications/
grassrootsguide/conservation-environment/conservation-stewardship-program/ (last visited Nov. 4, 2012).
75
The total funding to New England for fiscal year 2012 was based on total obligations, and includes technical and finan-
cial assistance. Conservation Security Program, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Serv., http://soils.usda.gov/survey/
rca/viewer/reports/fb08_cp_csp.html (last visited Dec. 23, 2013).
76
Under current rules, producers applying to the Conservation Stewardship Program work with NRCS to complete
a resource inventory using the conservation measurement tool. This determines the conservation performance — and
subsequently funding level — for existing and additional conservation activities. NRCS uses the conservation measurement
tool to evaluate applications through a point-based system to estimate the potential environmental benefits of a project.
Conservation Stewardship Program — Payment for Performance, supra note 73.
77
Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture Nutrition and Forestry,
http://www.ag.senate.gov/issues/farm-bill (last visited Nov. 4, 2012); Farm Bill, House Committee on Agriculture,
http://agriculture.house.gov/farmbill (last visited Nov. 4, 2012).
78
Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Serv.,
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/ccpi/ (last visited Nov. 26, 2013).
79
Id.
80
The Conservation Reserve Program: 43rd Signup Results, USDA Farm Serv. Agency 5 (July 2012),
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/su43state072512.pdf.
81
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program—Vermont, USDA Farm Serv. Agency, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/
newsReleases?area=newsroom&subject=landing&topic=pfs&newstype=prfactsheet&type=detail&item=pf_20110214_
consv_en_crepvt01.html (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
82
Regional Equity: Vital to Northeast Conservation, American Farmland Trust (2007) http://www.farmland.org/
programs/states/me/documents/AFT_FP13_NEequity_Alo.pdf; Civil Rights Impact for the Interim Final Rule: Region-
al Equity, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Serv. (2008), http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/
nrcs143_007905.pdf.
83
E-mail Communication with Lorraine Merrill, supra note 34.
84
Environmental Assistance Program, Conn. Dep’t of Agric.,
http://www.ct.gov/doag/cwp/view.asp?a=3260&q=398986 (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
85
Nutrient Management Loan Program, Finance Authority of Me., http://www.famemaine.com/files/Pages/business/
businesses/direct_loans/Nutrient_Mgt_Loans.aspx (last visited Dec. 23, 2013).
86
Agricultural Environmental Enhancement Program, Mass. Dep’t of Agric. Resources,
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/agr/about/divisions/aeep.html (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
87
E-mail Communication with Lorraine Merrill, supra note 34.
88
Id.
89
Elizabeth Brown & R. Neil Elliott, On-Farm Energy Use Characterizations 1, Am. Council for an Energy-Efficiency Econ.
(2005), http://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/ie052.pdf.
90
See, e.g., Dan York, et al., Three Decades and Counting: A Historical Review and Current Assessment of Electric Utility
Energy Efficiency Activity in the States 29, Am. Council for an Energy-Efficiency Econ. (2012), available at
http://aceee.org/node/3078?id=5114.
91
This section does not describe the incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects that are gener-
ally available to businesses, such as federal tax credits, property tax exemptions, or the significant utility-administered
programs funded by system benefit charges. Nor does it address the state laws and regulations associated with renewable
energy production at any business, such as net metering, renewable energy credits, and interconnection costs and fees.
92
Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) – Renewable Energy System and Energy Efficiency Improvement
Guaranteed Loan and Grant Program – Financing, USDA Rural Dev.,
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_ReapResEei_Financing.html (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
93
Id.
94
Id.
95
REAP Feasibility Study Funding Available, FarmEnergy.org,
http://farmenergy.org/news/reap-feasibility-funding-available ( last visited July 30, 2013).
96
Id.
64
97
Rural Energy for America Program – Energy Audit and Renewable Energy Development Assistance Grant Program,
USDA Rural Development, http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_ReapEaReda.html (last visited July 30, 2013).
98
Summary of Potential Federal and State Funding Sources for Manure to Energy Projects in MD, VA and PA,
Chesapeake Bay Comm’n, http://www.chesbay.us/Manure%20Summit/Funding%20for%20Manure%20to%20Energy%20
Technology%20Draft.pdf (Sept. 8, 2011).
99
Conn. Farm Energy Program, http://www.ctfarmenergy.org/index.html (last visited July 30, 2013).
100
Grants, Loans & Incentives for CT Farms, Conn. Farm Energy Program, http://www.ctfarmenergy.org/Grants.html
(last visited July 30, 2013).
101
Id.
102
Jan Ellen Spiegel, CT Farm Energy Program Faces Closure in Days, The CT Mirror, Apr. 23, 2013,
http://www.ctmirror.org/story/2013/05/06/ct-farm-energy-program-faces-closure-days.
103
Anaerobic Digester Program, Energize Conn.,
http://www.energizect.com/businesses/programs/Anaerobic-Digester-Projects (last visited Dec. 2, 2013).
104
Harvesting Clean Energy (brochure), Me. Rural Partners, http://mainerural.webfactional.com/energy/fieldguide/
hcebrochure.pdf (last visited July 31, 2013); see also, Farm Energy Field Guide, Me. Rural Partners,
http://mainerural.webfactional.com/energy/fieldguide/ (last visited July 30, 2013).
105
Funding Resources, Berkshire Pioneer RC&D, http://www.berkshirepioneerrcd.org/mfep/funding-resources.php
(last visited July 30, 2013).
106
Commonwealth Conversations – How to make the most of farm energy projects, Mass.gov,
http://blog.mass.gov/energy/energy-efficiency/make-the-most-of-farm-energy-projects/ (last visited July 30, 2013).
107
Anaerobic Digestion and Organics Diversion, Mass. Exec. Office of Energy and Envtl. Affairs,
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/service/energy/anaerobic-digestion/ (last visited July 30, 2013).
108
Publications, Berkshire Pioneer RC&D – Mass. Farm Energy Project,
http://www.berkshirepioneerrcd.org/mfep/publications.php (last visited July 30, 2013).
109
Savings for all Vermont Agricultural Facilities, Efficiency Vermont - Agriculture and Farms, http://www.efficiency
vermont.com/for_my_business/solutions_for_me/agriculture_and_farms/ways_to_save.aspx (last visited Dec. 1, 2013).
110
Id.
111
Cow Power – How It Works, Green Mountain Power, http://www.greenmountainpower.com/innovative/cow/
how-it-works/ (last visited Dec. 2, 2013); see also, Sandy Levine, Renewable Energy on Vermont Dairy Farms —
Challenges and Opportunities, CLF Scoop (Jul. 25, 2013), http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/
renewable-energy-on-vermont-dairy-farms-challenges-and-opportunities/.
112
See, e.g., Jan Ellen Spiegel, Program bringing clean energy solutions to Connecticut farms, The Connecticut Mirror,
July 25, 2011, http://ctmirror.org/story/13373/farm-energy-program-brings-clean-energy-solutions-underserved-industry
(discussing challenges of coordinating funding requests and burdensome application paperwork).
113
Guide to Agricultural Composting, Mass. Dept. of Agric. Resources, http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/agr/programs/
compost/guide-to-ag-composting2010.pdf (last revised 2010).
114
What’s at Stake: Energy Savings and Renewable Energy for Producers and Rural Businesses, Nat’l Sustainable Agric.
Coal., http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/energy-savings-and-renewable-senergy-for-farmers-ranchers-and-rural-
businesses/ (last visited Dec. 2, 2013).
115
Omnibus Public Land Management Act, Pub. L. No. 111-11, § 9508(a), 123 Stat. 997 (2009).
116
Id. at § 9508(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2)(A).
117
Id. at § 9508(d).
118
Massachusetts Sustainable Water Management Initiative Framework Summary 9 (Nov. 28, 2012), available at
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/water/swmi-framework-nov-2012.pdf.
119
R.I.G.L. § 46-15.7-3(2) (regarding the Water Resources Board); Rhode Island Water 2030 2—22, R.I. Division of Planning
(Jun. 14, 2012), available at http://www.planning.ri.gov/documents/guide_plan/RI%20Water%202030_06.14.12_Final.pdf
(regarding the Division of Agriculture).
120
See, e.g., 38-A.M.R.S. § 470C.
121
How Federal Policies Affect the Allocation of Water 2, Cong. Budget Office, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/
cbofiles/ftpdocs/74xx/doc7471/08-07-waterallocation.pdf (Aug. 7, 2006).
122
Id.
124
Id. at 3.
125
See, e.g., M.G.L.c. 21G, §§ 2 (defining water as including ground and surface water) and 7
(establishing reasonable-use-type criteria for permits).
126
Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 22a-365 to 22a-378.
127
Report to the General Assembly on State Water Allocation 3, Conn. Dep’t of Envtl. Protection, available at
http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/water_inland/diversions/water_alloc_rpt/wtrallc.pdf (Jan. 1, 2000).
128
M.G.L.c. 21G, § 7(3).
129
Id. § 8(9).
130
Id. § 7(7).
131
See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-40(a)(1).
132
M.G.L.c. 21, §§ 8B–8D.
133
The Land-Grant Tradition 20 (Association of Public and Land-grant Universities 2012),
http://www.aplu.org/document.doc?id=780.
134
USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, http://www.csrees.usda.gov/index.html (last visited Feb. 8, 2013).
135
Federal Assistance, USDA Nat’l Institute of Food and Agric.,
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/about/fed_asst.html#formulaGrants (last visited Feb. 8, 2013).
136
Denis A. Shields, Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension: Issues and Background 4, Cong. Research Serv.,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40819.pdf (Mar. 23, 2012).
137
Grants, USDA Nat’l Institute of Food and Agric.,
http://www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/afri/afri.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2013).
138
Id.
139
Denis A. Shields, Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension: Issues and Background 7, Cong. Research Serv.,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40819.pdf (Mar. 23, 2012).
140
Soil Testing, Conn. Agric. Experiment Station, http://www.ct.gov/caes/cwp/view.asp?a=2836&q=378206
(last visited Dec. 2, 2013).
141
FY 2014 Request for Proposals, N. New England Collaborative Research Funding Program, http://www.colsa.unh.edu/
sites/colsa.unh.edu/files/docs/NNE%20Collaborative%20Research%20RFP%202014.pdf (last visited Dec. 2, 2013).
142
Denis A. Shields, Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension: Issues and Background 18, Cong. Research Serv.,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40819.pdf (Mar. 23, 2012).
143
First in the Nation, Founded 1875 2, Conn. Agric. Experiment Station, http://www.ct.gov/caes/lib/caes/documents/
publications/caes_accomplishment_report.pdf (last visited Dec. 2, 2013).
144
Id.
145
Denis A. Shields, Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension: Issues and Background 10, Cong. Research Serv.,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40819.pdf (Mar. 23, 2012).
146
Id. at 1.
147
Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture, The Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program Spring
2013 Newsletter, http://www.nesare.org/Dig-Deeper/Publications/Northeast-SARE-Newsletters/Spring-2013.
148
Extension, USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/extension.html
(last visited Feb. 11, 2013).
149
Denis A. Shields, Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension: Issues and Background 19, Cong. Research Serv.
(Mar. 23, 2012), http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40819.pdf.
150
E-mail Communication with Lorraine Merrill, supra note 34.
151
Building a Stronger Future for UNHCE 4, Univ. of N.H. Cooperative Extension (Jan. 2012),
http://extension.unh.edu/resources/files/Resource002352_Rep3447.pdf.
152
See, e.g., A Vision for Rhode Island: A Five Year Strategic Plan for RI Agriculture 17, RI Agric. Partnership (May 2011),
http://www.farmland.org/documents/RI_agriculture_5yr_strategicplan.pdf.
66
153
Vermont Agricultural Innovation Center Releases ‘Request for Proposals’ Totaling One Million Dollars for
Value-Added Agriculture, Vt. Agency of Agric., http://vermont.gov/portal/government/article.php?news=1955
(last visited Dec. 23, 2013).
154
Id.
155
$2.7 Million in Grants for Agricultural Innovation Announced, Office of Governor Deval Patrick, May 18, 2007.
http://www.cranberries.org/pdf/2007_05_18_ma_ag_innovation_pr.pdf.
156
Phone communication with Kevin Sullivan, Chestnut Hill Nursery, member, Governor’s Council on
Agricultural Development.
157
S. Grund and E. Walberg, Climate Change Adaptation for Agriculture in New England, Manomet Ctr. for Conservation
Sciences (2013), http://www.manomet.org/sites/default/files/publications_and_tools/Agriculture_fact_sheet%205-13.pdf.
158
2012 Agricultural Viability Grants Program 3, Conn. Dep’t of Agric.,
http://www.ct.gov/doag/lib/doag/marketing_files/ag_viability_application_and_eval_12.pdf (last visited Nov. 25, 2012).
159
Farm Reinvestment Program: 2012 Grant, Conn. Dep’t of Agric.,
http://www.ct.gov/doag/lib/doag/marketing_files/frp_application_2012.pdf (last visited Nov. 26, 2012).
160
Maine Farms for the Future Program, Me. Dep’t of Agric., Food, and Rural Resources,
http://www.maine.gov/agriculture/mpd/farmland/future.html (last visited Nov. 26, 2012).
161
Progress Report on the Maine Farms for the Future Program 2, Me. Dep’t of Agric., Food, and Rural Resources
(Mar. 1, 2012), http://www.ceimaine.org/Resources/Documents/PanAtlantic%20FFF%20Evaluation%20Report%20Draft.pdf.
162
Farm Viability Enhancement Program, Mass. Dep’t of Agric. Resources, http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/agr/about/
divisions/fvep.html (last visited Dec. 3, 2013).
163
Farm Viability Enhancement Program Guidelines, Mass. Dep’t of Agric. Resources,
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/agr/about/divisions/fvep-guidelines.html (last visited Dec. 2, 2013).
164
APR Improvement Program Guidelines, Mass. Dep’t of Agric. Resources,
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/agr/land-use/aip-guidelines.html (last visited Dec. 3, 2013).
165
Cultivating Success on New Hampshire Farms 12, The N.H. Farm Viability Task Force Report (2006),
http://www.nh.gov/agric/publications/documents/FVTFFinalReport9-12-06.pdf.
166
DEM Announces Availability of Farm Viability Grant Funds to Enhance and Promote Rhode Island Specialty Crop,
RI.gov, http://www.ri.gov/press/view/18666 (last visited Dec. 23, 2013).
167
Rules and Regulations Governing the Administration of the Local Agriculture and Seafood Small Grants and Technical
Program, R.I. Division of Agric. (Oct. 2013), http://www.dem.ri.gov/pubs/regs/regs/agric/lasa13.pdf
(last visited Dec. 23, 2013).
168
Vermont Farm Viability Enhancement Program, Vt. Housing and Conservation Bd.,
http://www.vhcb.org/viability.html#brochure (last visited Nov. 26, 2012).
169
2011 Annual Report 4, Vt. Farm Viability Program (Jan. 31, 2012),
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/2012ExternalReports/275976.pdf.
170
Vermont Working Lands Enterprise Initiative, Vermont.gov, http://workinglands.vermont.gov/
(last visited Dec. 2, 2013).
171
Vermont Working Lands Enterprise Initiative FAQs, Vt.gov, http://workinglands.vermont.gov/wlei/faqs
(last visited Dec. 2, 2013).
172
Risk Management, USDA Econ. Research Serv., http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/
risk-management/government-programs-risk.aspx#.Ucsu1vm1H4Y (last visited June 26, 2013).
173
Keith Collins, Crop Insurance & Specialty Crops 36—37, National Crop Insurance Services, Today Crop Insurance
(Aug. 2012), http://www.ag-risk.org/NCISPUBS/Today/2012/Articles/August/SpecialtyCrops-Final.pdf;
Report to Congress: Specialty Crop Report, USDA Risk Management Agency (Nov. 2010),
http://www.rma.usda.gov/pubs/2010/specialtycrop.pdf.
174
Adjusted Gross Revenue, N.H. Dep’t of Agric., Markets and Food, http://www.agriculture.nh.gov/divisions/markets/
documents/UnderstandAGR.pdf (last visited Dec. 2, 2013).
175
E-mail Communication with Lorraine Merrill, N.H. Comm’r of Agric., James Phinizy, USDA Farm Services Agency &
Gene Gantz, USDA Risk Mgmt Agency (Nov. 6, 2013).
176
Risk Management, USDA Econ. Research Serv., http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/
risk-management/government-programs-risk.aspx#.Ucsu1vm1H4Y (last visited June 26, 2013).
177
Gov. Malloy Announces Emergency Assistance for State’s Weather-Damaged Farms, State of Conn. (June 23, 2013),
Governor Dannel Malloy, http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/cwp/view.asp?a=4010&Q=527106.
179
Northeast Dairy Farmers Cooperatives Newsletter, Northeast Dairy Farmers Coop. (Apr. 26, 2013),
http://www.grayandoscar.com/newsletters/2013-09/NDFC_E-letter_September_13_2013.pdf.
180
Northeast Dairy Farmers Cooperatives Newsletter, Northeast Dairy Farmers Coop. (Apr. 26, 2013),
http://grayandoscar.com/newsletters/2013-04/NDFC_E-letter_April_26_2013.pdf.
181
New England Milkshed Assessment—Connecticut Policy Memo, Am. Farmland Trust,
http://www.farmland.org/documents/CTPolicyMemo8-15-12FINAL_000.pdf (last visited Dec. 2, 2013).
182
New England Milkshed Assessment—Maine Policy Memo, Am. Farmland Trust,
http://www.farmland.org/documents/MainePolicyMemo8-15-2012FINAL_000.pdf (last visited Dec. 2, 2013).
183
Farming for the Future: A Sustainable Agriculture Agenda for the 2012 Food & Farm Bill 11, Nat’l Sustainable Agric.
Coal. (2012), http://sustainableagriculture.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/2012_3_21NSACFarmBillPlatform.pdf.
68
Chapter 3
F o o d S a f e t y, P r o c e s s i n g ,
Aggregation and Distribution
T
his section explores the processing, aggregation and distribution of produce, dairy, meat
and poultry, and seafood, as well as how food safety policies affect those industries. Over
the last two decades, New England has seen exciting growth in both for-profit and not-for-
profit ventures that are engaged in food aggregation, processing and distribution. Some are simply
expanding the region’s slaughter, processing and distribution capacity. Others are reconfiguring
or creating new aggregation and distribution business models to expand access to healthy food,
attract institutional buyers or shorten supply chains, which improves prices paid to farmers. Public
investments that leverage millions of dollars from businesses and philanthropies have been critical to
the redevelopment of the region’s food system
infrastructure. This infrastructure includes pro-
cessing, slaughter and distribution facilities, and
the businesses and services required to move
food from farm or boat to table. Public invest-
Highlights
ments in infrastructure are helping to expand
• For produce, advocate for changes to
the region’s food processing, aggregation and
the Food Safety Modernization Act rules
distribution capacity, but food safety regula-
so that the regulations address food
tions limit the distribution of many products.
safety concerns, while minimizing the
This section recommends policy actions that
negative effects on farmers, food pro-
address food safety issues while developing the
ducers and the environment.
capacity of the region’s produce, dairy, meat
and poultry, and seafood industries to build a • For dairy farms, promote business plan-
robust food system in New England. ning and provide grants to develop
additional on- and off-farm processing
capacity.
OVERVIEW OF FOOD
• For meat and poultry, study methods of
SAFETY POLICY
aggregation and distribution that can
Both public and private food safety require- meet the region’s growing demand for
ments play a large role in how the region’s local meat and poultry products.
food is produced, processed and distributed.
• For seafood, expand efforts to educate
Meat, poultry and dairy products must comply
consumers about other species of locally
with federal food safety law in order to enter
sourced fish available for consumption,
interstate commerce, and must comply with
and continue policy efforts to market
state law in order to be sold solely intra-state.
sustainably harvested fish.
In addition, private industry has, to date, largely
required produce to meet voluntary food safety
New England Food Policy : Food Safety, Processing, Aggregation and Distribution · 69
standards. These requirements seek to curb foodborne Accountability Office found that this fragmented system
illness, which has a considerable impact on health in has caused inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordina-
the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and tion and inefficient use of resources.3
Prevention (CDC) estimates that “each year roughly 1 in
6 Americans (or 48 million people) gets sick, 128,000 are As required by law, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection
hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases.”1 For Service (FSIS) conducts in-plant inspections of slaughter
years, the federal government has regulated meat, sea- and processing facilities to protect consumers. The FSIS
food and dairy product processing. But until recently, administers and enforces the Federal Meat Inspection Act
food safety standards for produce have been mostly vol- (FMIA); the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA); the
untary, required only by markets that want assurance that Egg Products Inspection Act; portions of the Agricultural
the produce they sell will not sicken consumers. To this Marketing Act; the Humane Slaughter Act; and the regula-
end, distributors, institutional buyers and grocery chains tions that implement these laws. This service is responsi-
have required produce farmers to comply with a variety ble for inspecting every animal before slaughter at USDA-
of food safety audits, most notably the Good Agricultural inspected slaughter facilities and every carcass after
Practices (GAP). The USDA and state governments have slaughter.4 The USDA also administers the rules regulating
helped train and certify farmers in these audits. pathogen reduction, as well as HACCP for meat, focusing
on the prevention and reduction of microbial pathogens
The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA),2 signed into on raw products. All federal and state establishments that
law in 2011, requires produce growers and processors to are inspected are required to have a HACCP plan.
comply with food safety standards. At the time of this
writing, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) The FDA is charged with administering the FSMA,5 which
was still revising several draft rules that will implement creates sweeping changes designed to prevent raw food
the FSMA. When completed, the regulations will require a contamination. Some changes go into effect immediately,
larger number of New England’s fruit and vegetable farm- others over time. Under the proposed food safety rules,6
ers to comply with new federal safety standards for how certain raw produce and processed foods will be subject
food is grown and processed. Ensuring that food is safe is to HACCP-like standards for the first time. For more infor-
vital to a healthy, functioning food system. However, many mation about the Food Safety Modernization Act, see the
New England farmers and food businesses are concerned Produce section below.
that several of the proposed rules will negatively affect
farms, on-farm conservation practices, and food aggrega-
S TAT E A N D LO C A L OV E R S I G H T
tion, processing and distribution businesses.
In addition to federal oversight of food safety, New England
State and local public health and safety regulations also states administer and enforce their own food safety laws
significantly affect food aggregation, processing and that affect the production, aggregation and distribution
distribution in New England, and can create barriers to of agricultural products.7 State regulations typically stip-
ulate the conditions under which meat and poultry can
the interstate exchange of farm products. Meeting food
be slaughtered, processed and sold within the state, and
safety needs in a way that does not chill expansion of
address the processing and sale of dairy and other food
the region’s food production will be an important public
products. Across the region, municipal governments often
policy challenge over the next few years, especially as
impose an additional layer of local health and safety regu-
implementation of the FSMA begins.
lations. As a result, farmers and food processors face mul-
tiple layers of food safety regulations depending on what
F E D E R A L OV E R S I G H T
products they market and where they market them.8 The
In the United States, federal oversight of food safety is New England Extension Food Safety Consortium — a six-
fragmented. Fifteen agencies collectively administer at state collective — maintains a website with links to each
least 30 food safety laws. The two primary food regula- New England state’s food safety laws.9
tory agencies are the USDA — responsible for the safety of
meat, poultry and processed egg products — and the FDA
— responsible for regulating other food. The Government
70
3.1 PRODUCE their produce to institutional buyers. Some small farmers
struggle to meet the costs associated with these volun-
Introduction tary audits, and instead limit their business to venues like
farmers’ markets.
Food safety requirements present financial and logisti-
cal challenges for all produce farms, but particularly for The proposed food safety rules will move beyond vol-
smaller operations. These challenges may increase once untary GAP and impose mandatory safety standards in
the final food safety rules under the FSMA are imple- an attempt to significantly reduce produce contamina-
mented. Farmers, food businesses and policymakers tion. The federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA)
throughout New England are struggling to understand the requires the FDA to issue food safety regulations for food
FSMA’s proposed Produce Safety and Preventive Controls products, including fruits and vegetables.13 The FSMA
rules and their implications. imposes the following changes:
New England Food Policy : Food Safety, Processing, Aggregation and Distribution · 71
Produce Safety Rule can lead to loss of nitrogen in the soil. Such a standard
The scope of the proposed Produce Safety Rule mirrors the may force farmers to use chemical fertilizers over manure,
FDA’s 1998 GAP Guide and the Harmonized Standards, all threatening an organic farm’s USDA organic certification,
of which cover the growing, harvesting and on-farm han- and degrading water quality with increased nitrogen load-
dling of fresh produce.16 Some experts believe that those ing in rivers and streams. Additionally, the proposed rule
in compliance with Harmonized GAP will likely be able to may cause farmers to remove native habitat around crop-
meet the final requirements of the Produce Safety Rule land in an attempt to keep wild animals from entering a
without changing practices or adding costs.17 Interviewees field.28 Such habitat is crucial for conserving biodiversity
for this project stated that the rule will likely have a sig- and protecting key pollinators. These are just two examples
nificant and detrimental impact on the region’s produce of the proposed rule’s potential environmental impacts.
growers, deterring efforts to scale up food production
in the region.18 The National Sustainable Agriculture Key Areas of Concern
Coalition is one of many groups that filed comments on
• Compliance costs may force some small- and mid-
the proposed rule, stating that the data on which the FDA
sized farms out of business, and the thresholds for
relied to draft the rule does not demonstrate that smaller
exemptions may chill interest among farms in expand-
operations pose the same food safety risks as larger ones;
ing production and sales.
therefore, the data does not adequately establish a sci-
entific basis for the proposed standards.19 While the pro- • The standard for withdrawing the qualified exemption
ees said they believe distributors and other food buyers • The withdrawal process does not afford adequate due
will demand compliance regardless of farm size, much as process to farms that qualify for an exemption.
buyers have demanded GAP audits from small farms.20
• The proposed rule may negatively impact the
environment.
Under the proposed rule, a small-farm exemption applies
to “small” and “very small” businesses.21 A “small” business
Preventive Controls Rule
sells annually no more than $500,000 in all food sales,
The proposed Preventive Controls Rule will apply to many
calculated on a three-year rolling basis.22 A “very small”
domestic and foreign farms and businesses that manu-
business sells annually no more than $250,000 in food,
facture, process, pack or hold human food. As the rule is
calculated on a three-year rolling basis.23 (The farm exclu-
currently drafted, facilities that process food must register
sion, according to the proposed rule, applies to any farm
under the FDCA but may qualify for an exemption under
with annual average food sales of $25,000 or less, cal-
the Preventive Controls Rule. The rule has two major
culated on a three-year rolling basis.24) Farms would be
features:
eligible for the exemption if, annually, the dollar value of
direct sales to “qualified end-users” exceeds the dollar • It contains new provisions requiring hazard analysis
value of sales to all other customers, and total average and risk-based preventive controls; and
annual food sales to all buyers is less than $500,000, cal- • It revises existing Current Good Manufacturing Practice
culated on a three-year rolling basis. Qualified end-users (CGMP) requirements found in 21 CFR Part 110.29
are consumers, restaurants and retail food establishments
that are either within the same state as the farm or within The hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls
275 miles of the farm.25 Qualified farms may be subject portion of the rule is similar to HACCP systems pioneered
to certain labeling requirements and the continued juris- by the food industry for juice and seafood.
diction of FDA to oversee the qualified exemption.26 The
FDA will have discretion to withdraw the exemption as it Covered “farm mixed-type facilities” — farms that manufac-
deems necessary to protect public health. ture or process food — and nonfarm food businesses may
need to develop written plans that identify potential haz-
The proposed rule may also cause significant environ- ards; steps they will take to minimize or prevent those haz-
mental impacts. For example, as drafted, it requires a ards; and actions that will correct problems that arise. The
nine-month waiting period between applying untreated FDA will evaluate the plans and inspect facilities to ensure
manure and harvesting a crop.27 This length of time would proper implementation of the hazard control plans.30
necessitate manure application in the fall of the year
before harvest, a practice that is discouraged because it
72
The proposed rule provides an exemption for small and PROCESSING
very small businesses conducting certain low-risk activ-
Expanding New England’s fruit and vegetable processing
ities. Under the draft Preventive Controls Rule, a small
capacity is increasingly important in meeting the grow-
business employs fewer than 500 employees.31 For the
ing year-round demand for local and regional produce.
final rule, FDA is considering three possible definitions of
Produce processing in the region is diverse, ranging from
a very small business:
light processing — such as washing, cutting and peeling
• Less than $250,000 in total annual food sales; performed on the farm or by distributors and food hubs
— to flash freezing, canning, juicing and dehydration.
• Less than $500,000 in total annual food sales; or
Processing also includes more extensive value-added pro-
• Less than $1 million in total annual food sales.32 cessing. While evidence of increased produce processing
can be found around the region, there has been little anal-
The Preventive Controls Rule also has the same direct-
ysis of the extent or economic impact of this growth.
to-consumer exemption as the Produce Safety Rule. The
CGMP provisions would still apply to exempt qualified
State and federal investments in both on- and off-farm
facilities under the Preventive Controls Rule.33
produce processing have been important in leveraging
private and philanthropic resources. This is especially
Farms working cooperatively may face additional chal-
true for processing enterprises designed to spur food
lenges under the Preventive Controls Rule. Farms that
entrepreneurship or improve farm profitability. With
purchase and sell produce from other farms, especially
USDA support, several food processing facilities, such
those that repackage or process off-farm produce in
as the Vermont Food Venture Center and the Western
any way, may need to comply with not only the Produce
Massachusetts Food Processing Center, offer processing
Safety Rule, but also the Preventive Controls Rule. The
space to new food businesses; they also process fruits
cost and additional labor the proposed rule would require
and vegetables for institutional customers in the region.34
may discourage small- and mid-sized farms from work- The Vermont Food Venture Center is a 15,000-square-
ing under these cooperative arrangements. Likewise, food foot food processing facility with a produce and prepa-
hubs — entities that aggregate or distribute — may need ration kitchen, a “hot pack” kitchen, dry and cold storage,
to comply with the rule. In particular, the rule may dis- semi-automated equipment, and a standard loading dock
suade food hubs that aggregate produce from small- and to receive and deliver pallets.35 The Western Massachusetts
mid-sized farms in the region, and work to increase those Food Processing Center provides co-packing services to
farms’ profits, from continuing their operations or starting farms interested in selling value-added fruit and vegetable
such food hubs in the first place. products, and is also working with a food service man-
agement company to create frozen vegetable mixes for
As with the Produce Safety Rule, small and very small the company’s institutional customers in New England.
businesses will have more time to comply with the final Federal programs such as the USDA’s Rural Business
regulation. It will apply to small businesses two years after Enterprise Grants Program and the Business and Industry
its effective date and to very small businesses three years Guaranteed Loan Program have been especially import-
after its effective date. ant to the development of these food processing cen-
ters.36 The USDA’s Value-Added Producer Grant program
Key Areas of Concern has helped several farmers in the region expand their light
• Compliance costs may force out of business some processing capacity.
small- and mid-sized farms with facilities that process
food on-site. State funding has also played an important role in
developing produce processing capacity around the
• The standard for withdrawing the exemption from a
region. State farm-viability programs in Connecticut,
qualified facility is ambiguous.
Massachusetts and Vermont provide business plan imple-
• The withdrawal process does not afford adequate mentation grants that farmers can use to finance con-
due process to farms and facilities that qualify for an struction of on-farm processing facilities.37 In Vermont, the
exemption. Working Lands Enterprise Fund offers capital and infra-
structure grants for processing facilities, including shared
New England Food Policy : Food Safety, Processing, Aggregation and Distribution · 73
facilities that have an impact on the industry beyond the Around the region, many food hubs, which often are oper-
host farm’s immediate business. For example, funding was ated by nonprofit organizations with missions to support
provided to Black River Meats to increase their volume local farmers and/or to expand access to healthy food,
of regionally produced meat.38 The Vermont Economic have been beneficiaries of state and federal grants to
Development Authority has also provided funding for pro- develop new distribution models, expand cold storage
cessing businesses.39 and freezer capacity, and increase processing options.45
Federal grants have also helped farmer cooperatives, such
Federal funding has helped public schools rebuild kitchen as Vermont’s Deep Root Organic Cooperative, and estab-
infrastructure to enable them to use farm-fresh pro- lished food businesses, such as Vermont Refrigerated
duce. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of Storage, which provides storage for much of Vermont’s
2009 provided $100 million in food service equipment apple crop.46
grants, which could be used for new coolers and freez-
ers, slicers and choppers, and produce-washing sinks.40 Whether New England can sustain a larger and more
Approximately $3 million was allocated to New England integrated regional produce market depends on expan-
states through this one-time grant program. 41
sion of aggregation and distribution opportunities, espe-
cially those that provide a fair return to farmers. As noted
above, the FDA’s proposed rules implementing the Food
AG G R E G AT I O N A N D D I S T R I B U T I O N
Safety Modernization Act present challenges for aggre-
The trend toward direct-to-consumer marketing in New gators, especially farms seeking to serve in that capacity.
England through farmers’ markets, CSAs and farm stands
has had a positive impact on farm profits and changed Food Hubs
produce distribution patterns. However, direct-to-con- In 2012, the USDA identified 32 food hubs operating in
sumer marketing still represents only 5 percent of total and serving various parts of New England.47 Food hubs
farm sales in the region.42 Many fruit and vegetable grow- expand the availability of healthy, fresh food and in
ers continue to depend on selling a portion of their prod- some cases target underserved communities to address
uct through wholesale markets. The food service man- food-access issues. The National Food Hub Collaboration
agement companies that run cafeterias at many of the defines a regional food hub as “a business or organization
region’s institutions buy a large portion of their produce that actively manages the aggregation, distribution, and
from national broadline food distributors. Increasingly, marketing of source-identified food products primarily
however, institutional customers are turning to regional from local and regional producers to strengthen their abil-
produce distributors in an effort to satisfy customer ity to satisfy wholesale, retail, and institutional demand.”48
demand for local food.43
74
Many federal and state grant and loan programs have
already been, or could be, used to finance various aspects Action
of food hub operations. The USDA “Regional Food Hub
Support for Existing Programs
Resource Guide” has identified federal programs as pos-
Federal
sible funding sources for food hubs.51 Unfortunately, some
of these programs may be underutilized in the region • Rural Business Enterprise Grants.
due to eligibility and geographic restrictions, or greater • Rural Business Opportunity Grants.
demand than available funding.
• Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program.
The Mad River Food Hub in Waitsfield, Vt., which opened Research and Analysis
in 2012, relies on funding from a variety of sources, includ- • Analyze the cost of compliance with the Food Safety
ing the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, the Vermont Modernization Act’s proposed Produce Safety and
Housing and Conservation Board’s Farm Viability Preventive Controls rules for various types of farm
Program, the Vermont Agency of Agriculture’s Agriculture operations in the region.
Innovation Center and the USDA Specialty Crop Block
• Determine the costs to New England states for imple-
Grant Program.53 Farm Fresh Rhode Island’s Market
menting the proposed FSMA rules.
Mobile was originally funded by the Rhode Island Division
of Agriculture and private funders .54 • Analyze private and philanthropic resources and the
economic impact of federal and state investments
Many food hubs are currently in a start-up or early devel- in food aggregation, processing and distribution
opment phase. The USDA reports that 60 percent of infrastructure.
food hubs have been in operation for five years or less.55 • Continue to research food hub business models, espe-
Training and support in business development is needed cially those that can be self-supporting and provide a
for some food hub operators. State farm viability pro- fair return to farmers.
grams have been used for processing and distribution
• Research whether the scale and management system
projects — both for capital improvements and technical
of a produce operation affects the risk of contaminat-
assistance or business planning. (For more information
ing its product.
about these programs, see Food Production, Chapter
2.) However, these programs are available only to farm
Policy Options
businesses, so food hubs may be ineligible. New food
hub operators could benefit from technical assistance on • Continue to advocate for modifications to the proposed
facility design and operations, including equipment, floor FSMA Produce Safety and Preventive Controls rules.
plans and operating costs.56
• Support the development of food aggregation centers
for small- and medium-sized producers.
New England Food Policy : Food Safety, Processing, Aggregation and Distribution · 75
3.2 DAIRY using local public health regulations to create trade bar-
riers that thwart interstate commerce of milk. The ordi-
76
than 130.66 Farms are processing a wide variety of milk AG G R E G AT I O N A N D D I S T R I B U T I O N
and dairy products, from butter and yogurt to farmstead
As mentioned above, dairy cooperatives play a signifi-
cheeses, ice cream and flavored milks. The start-up costs
cant role in managing milk between the producer and the
for many of these processing facilities are significant, as
processor. About 70 companies pick up milk from dairy
are the regulatory hurdles, which include both food safety
farms around the region, and the haulers are responsible
regulations and, typically, state environmental regulations
for physically managing the raw product. As milk is fre-
around wastewater. In order to transition into processing,
quently shipped to processing plants outside the state of
many of these farms rely on state-funded business plan-
origin, milk haulers must comply with multiple federal and
ning assistance, as well as state and/or federal infrastruc-
state trucking regulations. Inconsistent regulation of truck
ture grants, primarily through the federal Value-Added
weight limits between states in southern New England
Producer Grant Program and state farm viability programs.
continues to cause problems for regional milk haulers.
and regional branded fluid beverage milk products. In • Raise the cap on the dairy producer-handler exemp-
Rhode Island, the dairy farm members of Rhody Fresh tion under the federal milk marketing order to allow
use Guida’s Dairy in New Britain, Conn., to process their dairy producers to process more of their milk outside
milk, which is segregated from the rest of the plant’s the federal milk market pool.
milk and bottled using Rhody Fresh cartons. In western
• Establish workforce-development programs for dairy
Massachusetts, Our Family Farms dairy cooperative is
processing, or expand current state workforce-devel-
exploring the feasibility of building its own processing
opment efforts to include dairy processing.
plant to expand the line of fluid beverage milk products
they can offer, including bags and half-pints for schools • Improve access to information regarding HACCP
and other institutional customers. In both of these cases, requirements so that farmers and food entrepreneurs
federal funding has helped the cooperatives pursue local have the tools they need to make informed decisions
New England Food Policy : Food Safety, Processing, Aggregation and Distribution · 77
3.3 MEAT AND POULTRY processing services to the person who owns the animal
and agrees not to sell or barter the meat. Custom slaugh-
In recent years, New Englanders have demanded more The PPIA mandates inspection of poultry and poultry
locally raised and produced meat and poultry. In fact, in products, and regulates the processing and distribution
some states, like Vermont, demand for local meat outstrips of “domesticated bird[s]” for sale in interstate or foreign
supply.69 This is in part because New England’s ability to commerce.78 Any poultry slaughter and processing facility
process and distribute meat and poultry is controlled by that sells products within a state must comply with the
a complex set of federal regulations overseen by multiple PPIA whenever the state does not enforce requirements
federal agencies. Until recently, federal law mandated that at least as strict as the federal law. The PPIA exempts
only federally inspected meat could be placed in interstate poultry intended for personal consumption from federal
commerce under the FMIA 70
and PPIA . The 2008 Farm
71 inspection and instead imposes criteria intended to facil-
Bill relaxed that mandate. In mid-2011, the FSIS issued a itate the slaughter of healthy birds under hygienic condi-
final rule establishing a Cooperative Interstate Shipment tions.79 The PPIA also contains exemptions for:
(CIS) program.72 It allows meat and poultry to be shipped • Custom slaughter;
and sold across state lines if it is:
• A producer-grower of 1,000 or fewer birds;
• Inspected through approved state inspection pro-
• A producer-grower of 20,000 or fewer birds;
grams, which must at least meet federal inspection
standards; and • A producer-grower or other person;
• A retail operation.
Ohio has been approved to participate in the CIS pro-
gram,74 but, at the time of this writing, it is unknown when These exemptions excuse the covered business from
or if any New England states will choose to participate. some, but not all, requirements of the PPIA and limit the
All New England states currently have at least one feder- sale of the exempted product to intrastate commerce.80
ally approved slaughterhouse. Some states have inspec-
tion programs that allow sales of meat and poultry within In addition to facilities that meet federal inspection guide-
state borders. Many farmers throughout the region claim lines, states may implement coordinated meat and poultry
that slaughter and processing costs and quality, as well as inspection programs under an agreement with the USDA’s
a lack of capacity at key times of year, limit their ability to Food Safety and Inspection Service. Under the agreement,
capitalize on the growing demand for local, sustainable a state’s program must enforce requirements equal to or
and certified humane meat. greater than those imposed under the FMIA and PPIA,
and the products can be sold only in state.81 Maine82 and
The two main federal laws that seek to assure a safe The USDA rules also allow for state-inspected plants
meat supply are the FMIA and the PPIA. The FMIA estab- with fewer than 25 employees to apply to be part of the
lishes inspection requirements for cattle, sheep, swine CIS program, making it possible for some farmers with
and goats.75 These requirements are designed to pre- state-inspected meat to sell their products across state
vent adulterated or misbranded meat and meat products lines.86 Participating establishments receive inspection
from being sold as food in interstate commerce.76 Meat services from state personnel trained in the enforcement
that is intended for personal consumption by the live- of the FMIA and PPIA.87 The complexity and cost of estab-
stock owner, his or her household, or his or her guests and lishing and implementing the program may deter states
employees, and is processed by the farmer or by a custom from taking part.
slaughterer is exempt from inspection requirements.77 A
custom slaughterer is a person who provides slaughter or
78
Under the PPIA, Maine and Vermont both offer inspec- and Rhode Island.100 These units are intended to travel to
tion exemptions for small-scale poultry producers who farms, enabling those that produce fewer than 20,000
slaughter fewer than 1,000 birds per year for certain intra- birds each year to slaughter onsite.101 A USDA-inspected
state sales.88
Both states also license custom slaughter red meat Modular Harvest System based in New York’s
and processing facilities.89 Massachusetts issues licenses Hudson River Valley was built to serve not only New York,
to slaughter and/or process poultry using either a Mobile but also Massachusetts and Connecticut. The Modular
Poultry Processing Unit or small on-farm processing oper- Harvest System is a custom-built harvest unit that can be
ations.90 Connecticut has a program that allows poultry moved to any suitable docking site in the region. The first
growers who process on-farm and have passed state and so far only docking unit is in Stamford, N.Y.102 Both
inspection to sell directly to restaurants and consumers. In the mobile poultry processing units and Modular Harvest
2013, legislation expanded this program to allow the sale System are subject to the same federal regulatory require-
of Connecticut-grown and -inspected poultry to in-state ments and small-processor exemptions as brick-and-mor-
retail and wholesale markets.91 tar facilities, but may also be subject to additional state
requirements.103 The USDA recently issued a guidance
document to assist states in developing regulations for
S L A U G H T E R A N D P R O C E S S I N G C A PAC I T Y
mobile processing facilities.104
In 2010, the six New England state’s chief agricultural offi-
cers identified the lack of slaughter and processing capac- For many livestock operations, the high cost of slaugh-
ity as a serious impediment to increased consumption of ter and processing limits their ability to sell to local and
regionally produced meat.92 Although a 2010 regionwide regional markets. Another issue is the inconsistent quality
study of large-animal slaughter and processing capacity of processing, which can affect the ability to capture a
found almost enough slaughter capacity (82 to 97 per- high price in the marketplace. A third issue is slaughter
cent) around the region to meet the current large-ani- and processing availability. In parts of the region, farm-
mal market volume, there is significantly less processing ers must reserve slaughter dates for animals that have not
capacity (44 to 54 percent).93 Though some of the region’s yet been born.105 Public programs and policies can and in
slaughter facilities are running at less than full capacity, some cases already are helping to address these issues.
bottlenecks are common in many areas in the high-de- The Vermont Farm to Plate Strategic Plan has identified
mand fall months.94 Additionally, livestock producers are several ways the federal and state governments can help
concerned that the distance to facilities and the cost and slaughter and processing facilities reduce operating costs.
quality of services are impeding increased slaughter and Vermont has invested in educational programs aimed at
processing throughout New England.95 growing the pool of skilled meat cutters.106 Expanding the
use of mobile slaughter and processing units to pro-
The region currently has 28 commercial slaughter facili- vide additional capacity will require increased technical
ties and 30 commercial meat and poultry processors.96 All assistance and better collaboration with state and local
New England states have at least one federally inspected health officials.
slaughterhouse.97 Because Maine and Vermont com-
paratively raise a lot of livestock, those states have the Increasing demand for slaughter and processing facilities
most slaughter facilities in New England. Between 1997 in the region in the lightly used winter and spring months
and 2010, however, Vermont lost more than half its fed- would help to improve the profitability of many facilities.
eral or state-inspected commercial red meat slaughter At the time of this writing, Vermont was already experi-
and processing facilities.98 Both Maine and Vermont have encing less seasonal decline in the spring months because
state meat inspection programs, which allow intrastate more producers are finishing animals year round.107 One
sale of meat. New Hampshire has authorized a state meat possibility for expanding the regional supply of meat is
inspection program but has not funded it. Legislation to dairy beef. These cows — culled from dairy herds — can
create a program is pending in Massachusetts, and neither provide several cuts of meat, including ground beef. A
Connecticut nor Rhode Island has such a program.99 collaborative project between Farm to Institution New
England (FINE) and the six state departments of agri-
In addition to fixed slaughter facilities, mobile poultry pro- culture is focused on expanding institutional markets for
cessing units have been built in and licensed by several New England-sourced beef, including dairy beef. The proj-
New England states, including Vermont, Massachusetts ect is fostering relationships between institutional buyers
New England Food Policy : Food Safety, Processing, Aggregation and Distribution · 79
and the region’s processors, and is exploring creating a Research and Analysis
New England-branded meat program to promote locally
• Analyze the success of state farm viability programs in
produced, source-verified meat for wholesale and insti-
leveraging state and federal investments and improv-
tutional buyers. Such buyers often have additional food
ing the profit margins of slaughter and processing
safety standards for meat, requiring processors to have
facilities.
additional, expensive equipment, such as pasteurization
• Explore the feasibility of on-farm slaughter facilities to
machines. Public funding has been important to offset
process livestock from other farms.
these costs and enable processors to meet institutional
price points.
Policy Options
• Develop a more workable plan than the Cooperative
AG G R E G AT I O N A N D D I S T R I B U T I O N
Interstate Shipment program to allow shipment of
Around the region, several meat distributors are work-
meat across state lines.
ing with livestock farmers to meet demand for regionally
• Develop state-funded, low-interest loan programs for
sourced meat and poultry, amassing products from partic-
capital improvements to new and existing slaughter-
ipating farms. Associations and cooperatives of livestock
houses. Such improvements could include the devel-
growers seeking to aggregate, slaughter, process and
opment of satellite processing sites and additional
market their own meat are also emerging. For example,
on-site storage to maximize the facility’s kill-floor
the Rhode Island Raised Livestock Association, a non-
capacity.109
profit membership organization, worked with two local
family-owned meat processing businesses to “re-knit a • Provide business assistance to slaughter and process-
piece of the fabric of local agriculture infrastructure” and ing plants, allowing them to improve their services and
provide livestock growers with access to USDA-inspected overall profitability.110
processing facilities. This Rhode Island association now
• Decrease the costs of slaughterhouse and processing
runs a processing scheduling service for its members,
operations; provide access to technical assistance and
giving them a local and cost-effective way to have their
funding to address energy-efficiency opportunities;
animals processed at a USDA-inspected facility. In addi-
develop risk-management training to reduce insurance
tion to private funding, the association was supported in
premiums; and explore the potential for pooled liabil-
its early stages by a USDA grant.108 Replicating this type
ity insurance.111
of cooperative development in other areas of the region
could help livestock producers meet both processing and • Continue to provide regulatory support and train-
Support for Existing Programs that are able to address holistically the slaughter, pro-
80
3.4 SEAFOOD Shellfish is also inspected under the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program, a federal-state cooperative proj-
New England Food Policy : Food Safety, Processing, Aggregation and Distribution · 81
that remain are, in part, trying to create markets for fish affect the capacity of these species to make shells; water
species that remain abundant but are less known by con- pollution, such as sewage discharge and nonpoint source
sumers. Whether consumers will accept these less popu- runoff into estuaries and bays; and red tide, which refers
lar species instead of traditional finfish remains to be seen. to paralytic shellfish poisoning and an algae-caused threat
to human health. As a result, for many mollusk species,
As the dearth of wild fish worsens, New England also there has been a shift from wild harvesting to aquaculture.
has turned to aquaculture, which helps meet consumer However, aquaculture faces many of the same challenges.
demand. But it also creates challenges, including water Additionally, it poses several environmental risks, as
pollution from excess food, feces and antibiotics, and noted above.
genetic mutation from escaped fish interbreeding with
wild species.120 Aquaculture businesses are often unique Conversely, lobster harvests off the Maine coast have
operations that require a balanced regulatory structure. increased dramatically due to rising ocean temperature,
which has also caused a proliferation of non-native crab
Aquaculture has been limited to a few species. Recent species. The invasive crab species appears to be deci-
attempts to farm other popular finfish species are in prog- mating mollusk populations, as the crabs feed on young
ress. Great Bay Aquaculture, based in New Hampshire and clams, scallops and other species. The abundance of
Maine, is researching and farming Atlantic cod, summer lobster, particularly in the Gulf of Maine, runs the risk of
flounder, sea bass and sea bream.121 Great Bay Aquaculture creating a monoculture very susceptible to outbreaks of
is currently the only aquaculture company in the United shellfish-related diseases. In 2012, this abundance drove
States that raises Atlantic cod.122 Australis, one of the larg- down market prices and exceeded the capacity of New
est aquaculture businesses in New England, is the first in England processors. Industry leaders, nonprofit organiza-
the nation to produce barramundi — a high-value Pacific tions, and policy makers in Maine are meeting to discuss
fish.123
At present, however, only salmon is available to the possible actions to countermand the negative impacts of
consumer market, and raising other finfish faces several rising ocean temperature and the green crab invasion. At
technical challenges. In addition to marine aquaculture, the time of writing, the Maine legislature was consider-
a few inland fish farms in Vermont,124 New Hampshire125 ing a bill to study the impacts of ocean acidification on
and Massachusetts 126
farm trout and other freshwater spe- Maine’s wild and aquaculture shellfish industries and to
cies for the consumer market. recommend actions to protect these important fisheries.
growth.127 Currently, several government agencies manage numbers of finfish harvested under federally mandated
policies and regulations for these commercial operations. fishing limits.131 Thus, the number of processors appears
to have declined in step with the decline in commercial
Each agency’s authority in the realm of aquaculture is
finfish stock. Some remaining processors have started
often not clearly defined. 128
Generally, anyone interested
importing fish from outside the region to stay in business.
in starting an aquaculture business129 must consult with,
To adapt to the changing seascape, New England needs
and obtain permits or permission from, the Food and
to increase its lobster-processing capacity and its capac-
Drug Administration; the Department of Agriculture; the
ity to process previously undervalued finfish species.
Environmental Protection Agency; the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration; the Army Corps of
There are currently fewer than 20 lobster-processing
Engineers; and the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service.130
plants operating in Maine, not nearly enough to process
the state’s lobster harvest.132 Annually, Maine ships millions
Shellfish
of pounds of lobsters — 35 to 50 percent of the state’s
The two primary taxonomic orders of shellfish — mol-
annual catch133 — to processing plants in Canada, where
lusks and crustaceans — are experiencing very different
it is transformed into frozen products and sold back to
trajectories within the food system. Coastal harvesting
retail and foodservice markets in the United States and
of bivalve mollusks, like clams, has declined significantly
elsewhere.134 Maine’s state government is actively promot-
from a complicated mix of threats, including: the arrival
ing increased marketing and in-state processing of Maine
of invasive species; changes in seawater chemistry that
82
lobsters because the state is losing money to Canada.135 restaurants.143 As a result of this collaboration,
More complicated still, the record lobster harvest of the Hannaford Supermarkets has established a sustain-
past several years has driven down the prices paid to lob- ability policy that traces each of more than 2,500
stermen on both sides of the border.136 There was such an products back to their source, down to the precise
abundance of Maine lobster during the summer of 2012 fishery.144
that Canadian lobstermen blockaded their own process-
• The New England Aquarium encourages responsi-
ing plants to prevent deliveries of U.S. lobsters.
ble management of fishery resources and provides
support to regional and international fishing com-
Processing previously undervalued finfish species pres-
munities, industries and organizations.145 The aquar-
ents a different problem. For example, a facility may have
ium also works with supermarket chains and seafood
a HACCP plan and staff trained to process cod, which cur-
companies to implement sourcing policies and prac-
rently are in short supply, but no staff or HACCP plan to
tices to ensure greater environmental accountability
process species — like dogfish — that are more abundant
throughout their supply chains.146 Aquarium partners
but less familiar to consumers. Groups throughout New
include Stop & Shop, Giant Food stores and Darden
England are promoting these lesser known fish to insti-
Restaurants, which owns and operates Red Lobster,
tutional markets; restaurants are adding new species to
Olive Garden, Longhorn Steakhouse, The Capital Grille,
their menus to meet customer demand for fish and to try
Bahama Breeze and Seasons 52.147
to increase consumer interest in less-known fish. If these
• The University of Rhode Island has a Sustainable
less popular species, such as skate and dogfish, become
Seafood Initiative intended to “provide an indepen-
popular with consumers, processors will need to develop
dent third-party, objective source of information and
new HACCP plans and train staff to process these thick-
research on the sustainable seafood movement, its
er-skinned species.137
functioning, and its effectiveness.”148
A related issue, identified by participants in the 2013 Food • Roche Brothers Supermarket announced a new sea-
Solutions New England Summit, is that traditional sin- food traceability program in October 2012 through
gle-species processing has concentrated on high volumes which customers can scan a QR, or Quick Response,
in a few locations that are significant distances from the code for selected species, see a photo of the fish-
region’s smaller fishing communities. The lack of process- ing boat that captured the fish, and get information
ing capacity near small landing ports adds transporta- about the location fished and a description of the gear
tion costs and diminishes the freshness of fish in many used.149 Roche Brothers developed the program in
market locations. conjunction with their longtime partner, Foley Fish, a
seafood processor based in Boston and New Bedford,
Mass.150 Fish destined for Roche Brothers stores are
AG G R E G AT I O N , D I S T R I B U T I O N
cleaned and filleted exclusively at Foley Fish, and
AND MARKETING
delivered directly to Roche Brothers stores, allowing
Given the fish-stock crisis in New England, many markets
for an unprecedented level of traceability.151
and consumers demand seafood that is certified “sustain-
able.”138 The international nonprofit Marine Stewardship
While farm-to-school programs have been relatively suc-
Council offers an eco-label and sustainable fishery cer-
cessful in the region, as of this writing there are no paral-
tification program.139 The Global Aquaculture Alliance,
lel “boat-to-school” programs in state or local purchasing
through its Best Aquaculture Practices certification, sets
systems. But some institutional purchasers, such as hos-
standards for sustainable aquaculture.140 Developments
pitals, purchase regionally caught fish. Fostering a more
on the local level include:
robust market for a variety of local fish species presents
• The Gulf of Maine Research Institute has developed distinct, but not insurmountable, challenges.
a Sustainable Seafood Initiative,141 which includes a
Responsibly Harvested branding program that identi-
THE ROLE OF FISHING COMMUNITIES AND
fies Gulf of Maine seafood products that meet trace-
W O R K I N G WAT E R F R O N T S
ability and responsible harvest criteria.142 The institute
also collaborates with retailers and Portland-area A number of the issues noted above are making it increas-
ingly difficult for smaller, more remote fishing communities
New England Food Policy : Food Safety, Processing, Aggregation and Distribution · 83
to survive. Throughout New England, efforts are underway • Foster innovative approaches to processing, distribut-
to mitigate this, including community-supported fisheries ing and marketing under-utilized fish species.
and initiatives by Coastal Enterprises, Inc.
• Create a campaign that parallels the success of farm-
• Community-supported fisheries exist throughout to-table and farmers’ markets programs.
New England and are modeled after community sup-
• Advocate for a simplified, streamlined and com-
ported agriculture programs. For example, one com-
prehensive regulatory structure for the aquaculture
munity-supported fishery in Seabrook, N.H., has con-
industry that capitalizes on opportunities, adequately
sumers pay in advance for a guaranteed stream of fish
addresses environmental challenges and provides
throughout the summer.152 It is part of a collaborative
aquaculture businesses sufficient flexibility to grow.
effort to increase fishermen’s ability to market their
products locally and increase consumer awareness
of the benefits of seafood in their diet. 153
Partners
include New Hampshire Sea Grant, the University of
New Hampshire’s Cooperative Extension, and the local
fishing community
Action
Research and Analysis
Policy Options
84
ENDNOTES
1
Estimates of Foodborne Illness in the United States, Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention,
http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/ (last visited Nov. 22, 2013).
2
FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 111-353, 124 Stat. 3885 (2011).
3
U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-07-449T, Federal Oversight of Food Safety: High-Risk Designation Can Bring
Needed Attention to Fragmented System 1 (2007), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07449t.pdf.
4
Letter from Charles E. Williams, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Food Safety & Inspection Serv., to Bruce A. Wagman,
Schiff Harden LLP (Jun. 28, 2013).
5
Guidance & Regulation, U.S. Food & Drug Admin., http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/default.htm
(last visited Nov. 22, 2013).
6
See Standards for Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption, 78 Fed. Reg. 3504
(2013) (to be codified at 21 C.F.R. pts. 1, 16, 106, et al.) (proposed Jan. 16, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
FR-2013-01-16/pdf/2013-00123.pdf; Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive
Controls for Human Food, 78 Fed. Reg. 3646 (to be codified at 21 C.F.R. pts. 1, 16, 106, 110, 114, 117, 120, 123, 129, 179, and 211)
(proposed Jan. 16, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-16/pdf/2013-00125.pdf.
7
New England Food Entrepreneurs, New England Extension Food Safety Consortium,
http://extension.unh.edu/nefe/index.html (last visited Nov. 22, 2013).
8
Personal Communication with Jiff Martin, Conn. Coop. Extension Educator (Sept. 25, 2012).
9
New England Food Entrepreneurs, supra note 7.
10
See 78 Fed. Reg. 3504, 3646.
11
Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,
Food and Drug Admin., (Oct. 1998), http://www.fda.gov/downloads/food/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/
guidancedocuments/produceandplanproducts/ucm169112.pdf; see also Grading, Certification and Verification, U.S. Dep’t of
Agric., Agric. Mktg. Serv., http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/gapghp#P25_1498 (last visited Nov. 22, 2013).
12
David E. Gombas, Produce GAPs Harmonization: The Goal Is in Sight, Food Safety Magazine, June/July 2013,
http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/junejuly-2013/produce-gaps-harmonization-the-goal-is-in-sight/.
13
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 341–350l-1 (2013).
14
See 124 Stat. 3885–3973; Margaret A. Hamburg, What Does the New Food Safety Law Mean for You?, Foodsafety.gov,
(Jan 5, 2011), http://www.foodsafety.gov/blog/fsma.html.
15
See Hamburg, supra note 14; Personal Communication Abbey Willard, Vt. Agency of Agric. Local Foods Adm’r
(Mar. 29, 2013).
16
Gombas, supra note 12.
17
See id.; see also Personal Communication with Ken Ayars, R.I. Div. of Agric. (Apr. 1, 2013) [hereinafter, Ayars].
18
See, e.g., Ayars, supra note 17.
19
See, e.g., Re: Comments on the Proposed Rule for Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of
Produce for Human Consumption 9, Nat’l Sustainable Agric. Coal. (submitted Nov. 15, 2013).
20
See, e.g., Personal Communication with Steve Revicsky, Conn. Dep’t of Agric. (Apr. 1, 2013); Personal Communication
with Rich Bonanno, Univ. of Mass. & Mass. Farm Bureau Fed’n (Mar. 4, 2013); Personal Communication with John Harker,
Me. Dep’t of Agric. (Apr. 11, 2013).
21
21 U.S.C. § 350h(a)(1)(B) (2013).
22
78 Fed. Reg. 3630.
23
Id.
24
Id. at 3632.
25
Id. at 3504.
26
Id. at 3504.
27
Id. at 3637.
28
Id. at 3638.
New England Food Policy : Food Safety, Processing, Aggregation and Distribution · 85
29
Id. at 3795–3824.
30
Id.. at 3805–08.
31
Id. at 3800.
32
Id.
33
Id.
34
About Mad River Roof Hub, Mad River Food Hub, http://madriverfoodhub.com/about/ (last visited Nov. 22, 2013);
see also Our Facility, Vt. Food Venture Ctr., http://www.hardwickagriculture.org/vermont-food-venture-center/our-facility
(last visited Nov. 22, 2013); About the Western Massachusetts Food Processing Center, Franklin Cnty. Cmty. Dev. Corp.,
http://www.fccdc.org/food-processing#facilities (last visited Nov. 22, 2013); Freedom Foods,
http://freedom-foods.com/ (last visited Nov. 22, 2013).
35
Our Facility, supra note 34.
36
See, e.g., USDA’s Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program, U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 7 (June 2012), http://
www.occ.gov/topics/community-affairs/publications/insights/insights-usda-business-industry-guaranteed-loan-program.
pdf.
37
Farm Reinvestment Program: 2012 Grant, Conn. Dep’t of Agric., http://www.ct.gov/doag/lib/doag/marketing_files/
frp_application_2012.pdf (last visited Nov. 22, 2013); 2012 Agricultural Viability Grants Program, Conn. Dep’t of Agric.,
http://www.ct.gov/doag/lib/doag/marketing_files/ag_viability_application_and_eval_12.pdf (last visited Nov. 22. 2013);
Farm Viability Enhancement Program, Mass. Dep’t of Agric. Res., http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/agr/about/divisions/
fvep.html (last visited Nov. 22, 2013); Vermont Farm Viability Enhancement Program, Vt. Housing and Conservation Bd.,
http://www.vhcb.org/viability.html#brochure (last visted Nov. 22, 2013).
38
Capital and Infrastructure Investments, Vermont Working Lands Initiative,
http://workinglands.vermont.gov/projects/2012_2013/capitalandinfrastructure (last visited Nov. 22, 2013).
39
VEDA Approves $10.1 Million in Commercial and Agricultural Development Financing, Vt. Econ. Dev. Auth.,
http://www.veda.org/press-releases/veda-approves-10-1-million-in-commercial-and-agricultural-development-financing/
(last visited Nov. 22, 2013).
40
Farm to School Routes Newsletter, Nat’l Farm to School Network, (Apr. 2009),
http://www.farmtoschool.org/newsletter/april09/.
41
2009 Equipment Assistance Grants for School Food Authorities, Memo Code SP 18-2009, U.S. Dep’t of Agric. Food &
Nutrition Serv., (Mar. 9, 2009), http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/Policy-Memos/2009/SP_18-2009_os.pdf.
42
2007 Census of Agriculture, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/index.php (last
visited Nov. 22, 2013).
43
Dorothy Brayley et al., Produce Distribution Practices: Incorporating Locally Grown Produce into New England’s
Institutional Food System, Farm to Inst. New England (June 2012),
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5105338.
44
Id.
45
Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, Chapter 3.4 Food Processing and Manufacturing, Vt. Sustainable Jobs Fund, 20–25
(May 2013), http://www.vtfoodatlas.com/assets/plan_sections/files/3.4_Food%20Processing_MAY_13.pdf.
46
Id.
47
James Barham et al., Regional Food Hub Resource Guide, USDA, 4–81 (Apr. 2012),
http://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/tool-usda-regional-food-hub.pdf.
48
Id. at 4.
49
Id. at 24.
50
Id. at 26.
51
Regional Food Hub Resource Guide, USDA (Apr. 2012),
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5097957.
52
See Supporters, Red Tomato, http://www.redtomato.org/supporters.php (last visited Dec. 23, 2013).
53
Mad River Food Hub To Open In Waitsfield Community Food Processing Facility Will Serve Local Farms and Val-
ue-Added Producers, Mad River Food Hub, (Aug. 24, 2011), http://madriverfoodhub.com/mad-river-food-hub-to-open-in-
waitsfield-community-food-processing-facility-will-serve-local-farms-and-value-added-producers/.
54
Local Farms’ Sales to Chefs, Grocers, Schools up 50% in 2012, Farm Fresh R.I. (Dec. 14, 2012),
http://blog.farmfreshri.org/post/37916201120/local-farms-sales-to-chefs-grocers-schools-up-50-in.
86
55
Barham et al., supra note 47, at 10.
56
Id. at 34–47.
57
See 7 M.R.S.A. §2910 (1999); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §184-30a; 6 V.S.A. § 2701 (2011); 330 CMR § 28.03 (2013):
R.I.G.L. § 21-2-23 (2013); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-194.
58
Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance 2009 Revision, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., Food & Drug Admin.,
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/MilkSafety/NationalConferenceon
InterstateMilkShipmentsNCIMSModelDocuments/UCM209789.pdf (last visited Nov. 22, 2013).
59
21 C.F.R. § 1240.61 (2012).
60
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-129; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-173a; 7 M.R.S.A. § 2902-B (2013); G. L. c. 94 § 13; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §
184:30-a.
61
6 V.S.A. §§ 2775-78.
62
R.I.G.L. § 21-2-2.
63
Northeast Center for Food Entrepreneurship, Cornell University, College of Agric. & Life Scis.,
http://necfe.foodscience.cals.cornell.edu/regulations (last visited Nov. 22, 2013).
64
The New England Milkshed Assessment, American Farmland Trust (Sep. 2013),
http://www.farmland.org/documents/AFTdairyfinal10313.pdf.
65
Id.
66
Id.
67
Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, Chapter 3.4 Food Processing and Manufacturing, supra note 45, at 32.
68
Id. at 40.
69
Farm to Plate Investment Program: 18 Month Report (Jul. 1, 2010 – Dec. 31, 2011), Vt. Sustainable Jobs Fund,
http://www.vsjf.org/assets/files/Agriculture/Farm%20to%20Plate%20Annual%20Report_FY11.pdf.
70
See 21 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq.
71
See id. §§ 451 et seq.
72
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-234, H.R. 2419, 80 Stat. 923 (2008), amended the
Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to establish a cooperative inspection program under
which certain small and very small state-inspected establishments are eligible to ship meat and poultry products in inter-
state commerce. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 683, 472 (2008).
73
See 21 U.S.C. §§ 683, 472 (2008).
74
Ohio First to Participate in USDA’s Cooperative Interstate Shipment Program, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., http://www.usda.
gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2012/08/0268.xml&contentidonly=true (last visited Nov. 25, 2013).
75
21 U.S.C. § 601(j) (2011).
76
21 U.S.C. § 610 (2012).
77
9 C.F.R. § 303.1 (2012).
78
21 U.S.C. §§ 452–53 (2011).
79
See Guidance for Determining Whether a Poultry Slaughter or Processing Operation Is Exempt from Inspection
Requirements of the Poultry Products Inspection Act, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., (Apr. 2006),
http://afdo.org/resources/Documents/topical-index/2013/Poultry_Slaughter_Exemption_0406.pdf.
80
An extensive discussion of these exemptions is beyond the scope of this report. For a thorough overview of the ex-
emptions and a flow chart for determining poultry exemptions please refer to Guidance for Determining Whether A Poultry
Slaughter or Processing Operation Is Exempt from Inspection Requirements of the Poultry Products Inspection Act. Id.
81
“At Least Equal to” Guidelines for State Meat and Poultry Cooperative Inspection Programs, U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
Food Safety Inspection Serv. (Jul. 2008), http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/e257c4af-2a5e-4b50-8e5e-
3e8da94af949/At_Least_Equal_to_Guidelines.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
82
Quality Assurance & Regulations, Maine Dep’t of Agric., Conservation & Forestry,
http://www.maine.gov/agriculture/qar/inspection.html (last visited Nov. 25, 2013).
83
Vermont Meat & Poultry Inspection, Vt. Agency of Agric. Food & Mkts.,
http://agriculture.vermont.gov/food_safety_consumer_protection/meat_poultry_inspections (last visited Nov. 25, 2013).
New England Food Policy : Food Safety, Processing, Aggregation and Distribution · 87
84
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 427:3.
85
Kathleen Callahan, Are Two Slaughterhouses Enough to Handle Meat Processing in the Entire State?, New Hampshire
Business Review (Oct. 5, 2013), http://www.nhbr.com/October-5-2012/Are-two-slaughterhouses-enough-to-handle-meat-
processing-in-the-entire-state/.
86
9 C.F.R. § 332.3(a) (2011).
87
9 C.F.R. § 332.6(b) (2011).
88
22 M.R.S.A. § 2517-C(1) (2009) (“[I]nspection is not required for the slaughter of poultry or the preparation of poultry
products as long as the poultry are slaughtered or the poultry products are prepared on the farm where the poultry were
raised and: A. Fewer than 1,000 birds are slaughtered annually on the farm; B. No birds are offered for sale or transporta-
tion in interstate commerce; C. Any poultry products sold are sold only as whole birds; D. The poultry producer has a valid
license issued under section 2514; E. The facilities for slaughtering and processing are in compliance with rules adopted
under subsection 6; F. The poultry producer assigns a lot number to all birds sold and maintains a record of assigned lot
numbers and the point of sale; and G. The poultry are sold in accordance with the restrictions in subsection 2.”); 6 V.S.A.
§ 3312(b) (2007) (“Inspection shall not be required for the slaughter or preparation of poultry products of the producer’s
own raising on the producer’s own farm, whether or not they are intended for use as human food if: (1) Fewer than 1,000
birds are slaughtered annually; and (2) No birds are offered for sale or transportation in interstate commerce; and (3) The
poultry products are only sold, as whole birds only, from the farm, at a farmers’ market, or to a food restaurant licensed by
the commissioner of health, or are for personal use.”).
89
See 22 M.R.S.A. § 2514 (1999); 6 V.S.A. § 3306 (2010).
90
Application for Licensure to Slaughter and/or Process Poultry Using Mobile Poultry Processing Unit (MPPU) or Small
On-Farm Processing Operations in Accordance with M.G.L.C. 94, § 120 and/or 105 CMR 530.000 and 532.000 and in Accor-
dance with Exemptions Associated with the Federal Poultry Products Inspection Act, Commonwealth of Mass., Executive
Office of Health and Human Servs., Dep’t of Public Health, Food Protection Program (May 2011), http://www.mass.gov/
eohhs/docs/dph/environmental/foodsafety/mppu-license-application.pdf.
91
Ken Dixon, Legislature 2013 Heads Towards the Eggs-It, Connecticut Post (May 17, 2013), available at
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Ken-Dixon-Legislature-2013-heads-for-the-eggs-it-4526449.php.
92
Blue Ribbon Commission on Land Conservation Report to the Governors, New England Governors’ Conference, Inc., 21
(Jul. 2010), http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/2010_clc_report.pdf.
93
Chelsea Bardot Lewis, An Assessment of New England’s Large Animal Slaughter and Processing Capacity (June 2010).
94
Id.; see also Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, Chapter 3.4 Food Processing and Manufacturing, supra note 45, at 6.
95
See Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, Chapter 3.4 Food Processing and Manufacturing, supra note 45; See also Demand
Study: Assessing volume and attributes of farmer demand for slaughter and meat processing services in Massachusetts,
Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (June 2008),
http://www.buylocalfood.org/upload/resource/Slaughter.DemandStudy2008.pdf.
96
See Scaling Up New England’s Value Added Meat Industry, Vt. Food System Atlas,
http://www.vtfoodatlas.com/network/technical-assistance-producers-processors/activity/3 (last visited Dec. 30, 2013).
97
See Local Slaughterhouses & USDA Processing Facilities, Univ. of Conn. Coop. Extension Sys., http://www.ct.gov/
doag/lib/doag/farm_to_school_images_/CT_SLAUGHTERHOUSES.pdf (last visited Nov. 25, 2013); Elaine Grant, Farmers
Struggle to Satisfy Appetite for Local Meat, N.H. Public Radio (May 18, 2010), http://info.nhpr.org/node/32463; Personal
Communication with Carrie A. Roberts, Vt. Agency of Agric., Food & Mkts., Food Safety & Consumer Prot. (Jul. 12, 2013)
[hereinafter, Roberts].
98
State, USDA and Custom Slaughter Establishments in Maine, Maine Dep’t of Agric., Conservation & Forestry, http://
www.maine.gov/dacf/qar/inspection_programs/red_meat_poultry_inspection.shtml (last visited Nov. 25, 2013); Roberts,
supra note 97; see also Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, Chapter 3.4 Food Processing and Manufacturing, supra note 45, at 11.
99
Listing of States Without Inspection Programs, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/
inspection/state-inspection-and-cooperative-agreements/states-without-state-mpi-programs (last visited Nov. 25, 2013).
100
Mobile Slaughter/Processing Units Currently in Operation, Univ. of R.I., Coop. Extension Sys., http://www.extension.org/
pages/19781/mobile-slaughterprocessing-units-currently-in-operation (last updated Aug 20. 2013).
101
Mobile Poultry Processing Unit Project, New England Small Farm Inst.,
http://www.smallfarm.org/main/special_projects/mppu/ (last visited Dec. 23, 2013).
102
The Modular Harvest System: Supporting the Region’s Livestock Producers, Local Infrastructure for Local Agriculture.,
http://www.lila-northeast.org/mission.html (last visited Nov. 25, 2013).
103
Mobile Slaughter Unit Compliance Guide, U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/shared/PDF/Compliance_Guide_Mobile_Slaughter.pdf (last visited Nov. 25, 2013).
104
Id.
105
Personal Communication with Winton Pitcoff, Northeast Organic Farming Ass’n: Mass. Chapter (Oct. 11, 2012).
88
106
John Flowers, Local Program to Boost Number of Meat Cutters, Addison Cnty. Indep., (Feb. 23, 2012), available at
http://www.addisonindependent.com/201202local-program-boost-number-meat-cutters.
107
Personal Communication with Chelsea Bardot Lewis, Senior Agric. Dev. Coordinator, Vt. Agency of Agric., Food &
Mkts. (Nov. 1, 2013).
108
Rhode Island Raised Livestock Association, http://www.rirla.org/ (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
109
Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, Chapter 3.4 Food Processing and Manufacturing, supra note 45, at 35.
110
Id. at 36.
111
Id. at 37.
112
Lindsey Konkel, On the Rebound, New England Oysters Face Climate Threat, Progressive Charleston (Apr. 22, 2013),
http://www.progressive-charlestown.com/2013/04/on-rebound-new-england-oysters-face.html.
113
Fish Watch, U.S. Seafood Facts, Nat’l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin., http://www.fishwatch.gov/buying_seafood/in-
specting_seafood.htm (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
114
Id.
115
Id.
116
National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish, U.S. Food & Drug Admin.,
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FederalStateFoodPrograms/ucm2006754.htm (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
117
See The Connecticut Shellfish Program, Conn. Dep’t of Agric., http://www.ct.gov/doag/cwp/view.asp?a=1369&Q=259170
(last visited Nov. 22, 2013); Maine Shellfish Dealer Certification and Inspection Program, Me. Dep’t of Marine Servs.,
http://www.maine.gov/dmr/rm/public_health/certification.htm (last visited Nov. 27, 2013); Shellfish Sanitation and
Management, Mass. Div. of Marine Fisheries, http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dmf/programs-and-projects/
shellfish-sanitation-and-management.html (last visited Nov. 27, 2013); Shellfish Inspection, N.H. Dep’t of Health & Human
Servs., http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/dphs/fp/shellfish/index.htm (last visited Nov. 27, 2013); Shellfish Inspection Program,
R.I. Dep’t of Health., http://www.health.ri.gov/programs/shellfish (last visited Nov. 27, 2013); Shellfish Sanitation Program
Rules, Vt. Dep’t of Health. http://healthvermont.gov/regs/shellfishrules.pdf (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
118
Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers List, U.S. Food & Drug Admin.,
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM322593.pdf (last visted Nov. 27, 2013).
119
Statement of Organization Practices and Procedures (SOPP), New England Fisheries Mgmt. Council, http://www.
nefmc.org/about/index.html (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
120
Rebecca J. Goldburg et al., Marine Aquaculture in the United States: Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, Pew
Oceans Comm’n (2001), http://www.iatp.org/files/Marine_Aquaculture_in_the_United_States_Enviro.htm.
121
About GreatBay Aquaculture of NH, GreatBay Aquaculture, http://www.gbanh.com/aboutus.html
(last visited Oct. 18, 2013).
122
Whit Richardson, Fishing for a Future, Facing Mounting Costs and Restricted Access, Maine Fishermen find New
Opportunities in a Growing Aquaculture Industry, MaineBiz (Feb 9, 2010) http://www.mainebiz.biz/article/20100208/
CURRENTEDITION/302089998/fishing-for-a-future-part-2-%7C-facing-mounting-costs-and-restricted-access-maine-
fishermen-find-new-opportunities-in-a-growing-aquaculture-industry.
123
Barramundi: The Sustainable Seabass, Australis, http://www.thebetterfish.com/home (last visted Nov. 27, 2013).
124
Aquaculture Situation and Outlook Report 2007: Vermont, Northeastern Region Aquaculture Ctr.,
http://nrac.umd.edu/files/factsheets/nrac-111-2007_vermont.pdf (last visited Oct. 18, 2013).
125
New Hampshire’s Fish Hatchery Program, N.H. Fish & Game,
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Fishing/fisheries_management/hatcheries.htm (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
126
State Fish Hatcheries, Mass. Executive Office of Energy & Envtl. Affairs,
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dfw/about-masswildlife/state-fish-hatcheries.html (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
127
National Aquaculture Sector Overview, United States of America, Food & Agric. Org. of the United Nations,
http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_usa/en (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
128
Development of a Policy Framework for Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the 3-200 Mile U.S. Ocean Zone,
Ctr. for the Study of Marine Policy Univ. of Del.,
http://www.lib.noaa.gov/retiredsites/docaqua/reports_noaaresearch/sgeez1final.pdf (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
129
Ecosystem-based management and jurisdictional issues surrounding non- fisheries offshore marine services:
LNG terminals, aquaculture and wind farming, Memorandum from Chad Demarest to New England Fishery Mgmt.
Council, 2 (Sept. 2, 2005), http://www.nefmc.org/ecosystems/05Sep02_NEFMCwhitepaper.pdf.
130
All About Aquaculture: Current Status in New England, Talking Fish, http://www.talkingfish.org/did-you-know/all-
about-aquaculture-current-status-in-new-england (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
New England Food Policy : Food Safety, Processing, Aggregation and Distribution · 89
131
For example, because of high demand, it does not appear that Whole Foods’s 2012 decision not to process and sell
seafood it considers unsustainable has affected seafood processing in New England. This is true even though Whole Foods
had a processing plant in Gloucester, Mass., that previously processed 10,000 pounds of seafood a day. See Abby
Goodnough, A Ban on Some Seafood Has Fishermen Fuming, N.Y. Times (Apr. 21, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/us/to-new-england-fishermen-another-bothersome-barrier.html.
132
Maine’s Surging Lobster Haul Shifts Focus to Processing (Me. Public Broadcasting Network broadcast Aug. 6, 2013),
http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/5347/ItemId/29303/Default.aspx.
133
Clarke Canfield, Lobster Glut Causes Canadian Fisherman to Protest Maine Lobster, Call Product ‘Garbage’, Huffington
Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/lobster-glut-canadian-fisherman_n_1763759.html (last visited Nov. 27,
2013).
134
Governor Meets with Maine Lobster Processors (Me. Public Broadcasting Network broadcast Aug 10, 2012),
http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3478/ItemId/23222/Default.aspx.
135
Don Carrigan, Governor Wants Maine Lobster Independent of Canadian Processors, WCSH (Aug. 1, 2013),
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article/251791/2/Governor-wants-Maine-lobster-independent-of-Canadian-processors.
136
Canfield, supra note 133.
137
Personal Communication with Niaz Dory, Director, Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance (Apr. 30, 2013).
138
See Fish and Seafood Sector Profile – New England, United States, Agric. & Agri-Food Can.,
http://www.ats-sea.agr.gc.ca/amr/4659-eng.htm (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
139
Vision and Mission, Marine Stewardship Council, http://www.msc.org/about-us/vision-mission
(last visited Nov 27, 2013).
140
Global Aquaculture Alliance, http://www.gaalliance.org/, (last visited Nov 27, 2013).
141
Sustainable Seafood Initiative, Gulf of Maine Research Inst., http://www.gmri.org/mini/index.asp?ID=33&p=85
(last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
142
Gulf of Maine Responsibly Harvested Program, Gulf of Maine Research Inst.,
http://www.gmri.org/mini/index.asp?ID=33&p=111 (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
143
Restaurants and Retailers, Gulf of Maine Research Inst., http://www.gmri.org/mini/index.asp?ID=33&p=109
(last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
144
Matt Wickenheiser, Hannaford Unveils Storewide Sustainable Seafood Policy, Bangor Daily News (May 23, 2013)
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/05/23/business/hannaford-unveils-storewide-sustainable-seafood-policy/.
145
Sustainable Seafood Program, New England Aquarium, http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/projects/
fisheries_bycatch_aquaculture/sustainable_fisheries/index.php (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
146
Sustainable Seafood Advisory Service, New England Aquarium, http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/
projects/fisheries_bycatch_aquaculture/sustainable_fisheries/corporate_partners/index.php (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
147
Sustainable Seafood Partners, New England Aquarium, http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/projects/
fisheries_bycatch_aquaculture/sustainable_fisheries/corporate_partners/client_list.php (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
148
Safe and Sustainable Seafood Extension Program, R.I. Sea Grant, http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/seafood/index.html (last
visited Nov. 27, 2013).
149
Roche Bros. Announces All Natural, Sustainable Seafood Program, PR Newswire, http://www.prnewswire.com/
news-releases/roche-bros-announces-all-natural-sustainable-seafood-program-174384261.html (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
150
Id.
151
Id.
152
Jennifer Feals, Fisherman’s Coop Offers Community Supported Fishery Program, SeacoastOnline (Jun. 27, 2013)
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20100627-NEWS-6270342.
153
Id.
154
A Development Approach to Fisheries and Maine’s Working Waterfront, Coastal Enterprises, Inc.,
http://www.ceimaine.org/Fisheries (last visited Nov. 27, 2013).
155
Jessica Hall, Study to Look at Ways to Distribute Maine Seafood to Food Hubs, Portland Press Herald (Oct. 14, 2012)
http://www.pressherald.com/business/Study-to-look-at-ways-to-distribute-Maine-seafood-to-food-hubs.html.
90
Chapter 4
Markets
I
ncreased demand for locally sourced food over the past decade among the region’s 14 million
consumers has generated new market opportunities for farmers and food entrepreneurs, and
had a positive impact on farm profitability. A 2010 action plan put together by the region’s six
state commissioners and secretaries of agriculture, known as the chief agricultural officers, found
that direct-to-consumer sales in New England
increased 62 percent from 2002 to 2007. These
sales, in turn, helped to increase the total market
value of agricultural products sold in the region
by 30 percent.1 New England has some of the
Highlights
highest direct sales in the country; Vermont is
• Research current levels of local and
the national leader in per-capita direct market
regional food consumption, and the
sales; New Hampshire ranks first in the per-
potential for increased consumption,
centage of farms reporting direct-to-consumer
focusing especially on price points for
sales; and Connecticut, Massachusetts and
large retail and institutional markets.
Rhode Island rank first, second and third nation-
ally in average direct sales per farm.2 • Strengthen state procurement policies
in order to drive additional demand for
Capturing these new opportunities has required New England-sourced foods at state uni-
more business planning, new marketing versities and community colleges, pris-
approaches and, in many cases, new infrastruc- ons and government buildings. Creating
ture, both on- and off-farm. The chief agricul- two-tiered state procurement policies,
tural officers noted that each of the six New preferring food sourced from within the
England states has developed programs to state and across New England, would
encourage direct marketing and expand sales recognize the imbalance in supply and
to schools and other institutions, making the demand in many New England states
region a national leader in delivering local food and the economic value to the region in
and farm products at the retail and institutional increasing regional demand.
levels. The agricultural officers recognized the
need for regional-scale approaches to comple- • Help producers comply with the Food
ment these state actions, including strategies Safety Modernization Act and other
demand curve for locally sourced food contin- retail and institutional buyers in order
ues to rise, price sensitivity remains a significant to maintain and increase production to
Maine
Data shows that consumers’ knowledge about the source
The “Get Real. Get Maine!” branding program promotes
of their food will often affect their purchasing decisions. In
food and agricultural products or products made with
New Hampshire, for instance, a 2009 survey found that 90
ingredients that are primarily grown, raised, harvested or
percent of adults were more likely to buy farm products
processed in Maine. The “Get Real. Get Maine!” logo may
from the state over those produced elsewhere.5 A 2007
be used on a product package, in a farm stand or in mar-
survey of Connecticut consumers found that 72 percent
keting materials. Logos are available for download after
of respondents said it was very or somewhat important
that their food be gown in Connecticut, and 45 percent of
92
filling out an application describing the use of the logo displaying the Seal of Quality logo design are made avail-
and, for processors, providing a food license number.1 able to participants at cost.10
94
Each of the New England states also participates in Food buy-local groups, one of the most prominent, Community
Export USA Northeast, a nonprofit created in 1973 as a Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA), operates the
cooperative effort between 10 Northeastern state agri- Be a Local Hero, Buy Locally Grown™ campaign in three
cultural promotion agencies and the USDA’s Foreign western Massachusetts counties. This successful private
Agricultural Service. Food Export Northeast promotes the branding initiative has increased public awareness about
exportation of Northeast food and agricultural products.24 local food sourcing at the county level. CISA has honed its
marketing approach through the use of market research
Driven by an interest to expand opportunities for in-state and studies. Recent market research shows that more
producers, Massachusetts and Connecticut are investing than 82 percent of the region’s residents recognize the Be
state resources in developing regional markets in their a Local Hero logo, and those who recognize the logo are
respective state capitals. In 2011, Massachusetts Gov. Deval twice as likely to buy products branded as locally grown.30
Patrick signed an executive order establishing a Public Member farms report that the brand gives their products
Market Commission to define the mission of a public immediate recognition and respect as part of a larger,
market in downtown Boston, select an operator of the cohesive local campaign.31 The CISA branding initiative
market and monitor the financial health of the market reg- has caught on due in large part to intensive and effective
ularly.25 The market is intended to provide Massachusetts’ advertising, made possible through an investment of more
farmers, fish and seafood producers, as well as produc- than $1 million since the brand’s inception. CISA is funded
ers of agricultural and specialty products, with a year- by both government grants and foundation support.32
round venue for direct sales, helping to create jobs both
at the public market and for producers. It will also give
HARVEST NEW ENGLAND
consumers an opportunity to learn about and purchase
healthy, sustainably grown and harvested food.26 While Harvest New England is a cooperative marketing program
the operator is partially responsible for market design created in 1992 by the New England state departments
and construction, the state is financing some associated of agriculture to support the sale of New England-grown
Connecticut’s Hartford Regional Market is a state-owned, England specialty crop growers. The multistate organi-
statutorily authorized distribution terminal for agricultural zation sponsors a regionwide biennial direct-marketing
Across the region, a number of nonprofit organizations • USDA’s Specialty Crop Block Grant Program has been
are helping to educate consumers about the benefits of a vital source of funding for buy-local and other market
buying locally grown food and locally produced products. development efforts. Both the Senate and House ver-
Most of these organizations receive some state and/or sions of the 2013 farm bills increase mandatory fund-
federal funding, and so are public-private partnerships. ing for specialty crop block grants to $70 million per
Massachusetts has the most robust network of buy-lo- year. Both bills also set aside new funds for multi-state
cal organizations in the region. Of the eight sub-regional projects.34 USDA’s Federal-State Market Improvement
96
providing targeted word-of-mouth promotion assistance
and training for farmers in the local communities where Discussion
direct farm markets exist.42
S TAT E P U R C H A S I N G P O L I C I E S A N D
Regional Branding and Promotion PROCUREMENT PREFERENCES
Harvest New England offers a potential vehicle for greater The purchasing authority for each state government in
promotion of New England-sourced foods to the region’s New England is assigned to a single administrative agency
institutions. Collaboration between Harvest New England that acts on behalf of, or oversees purchases by, all other
and Farm to Institution New England may help identify agencies according to a single set of rules for procure-
ways that regional foods can be better identified through ment and contracts. Since each state’s requirements are
existing food distribution channels. substantively distinct, an agricultural or food purchasing
preferred-policy must be tailored to meet the general
Milk and dairy products represent the segment of the food standard in each state.
supply that is closest to regional or state-level self-suf-
ficiency. Therefore, New England as a whole and all six Connecticut
states individually would benefit from a greater recog- Connecticut General Statutes section 4a-51(b) requires the
nition of the regional nature of the milk supply. Despite commissioner of administrative services to favor in-state
the efforts of producer-funded entities such as the New food products: “The Commissioner of Administrative
England Dairy & Food Council and the New England Milk Services, when purchasing or contracting for the purchase
Promotion Board, as well as several state dairy promotion of dairy products, poultry, eggs, beef, pork, lamb, farm-
organizations, dairy is under-appreciated as a locally and raised fish, fruits or vegetables pursuant to subsection
regionally produced food sector. (a) of this section, shall give preference to [such prod-
ucts] grown or produced in this state, when such products
are comparable in cost to [similar products] being con-
sidered for purchase by the commissioner that have not
4.2 PURCHASING AND been grown or produced in this state.” The Department
PROCUREMENT PREFERENCES of Agriculture internally debated a legislative proposal to
allow for a 5 percent larger expenditure for Connecticut-
98
E N A B L I N G LO C A L P R O C U R E M E N T for formal bids. School purchases under the USDA Foods
PREFERENCES Program, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, and the
Department of Defense Fresh Program are treated differ-
Across the region, food-buying decisions for K-12 public
ently. For more information about these three programs,
schools are made by the individual school, the local school
see the Institutional Markets section, below.
district or a combination of the two. K-12 public schools
may receive both financial assistance and food prod-
Massachusetts is the only state in the region with statu-
ucts from the federal government through several pro-
tory language that enables municipalities to prefer local
grams, including the National School Lunch Program, the
food. Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 30B, sec-
National School Breakfast Program and the USDA Foods
tion 20, allows any governmental body in Massachusetts
Program. The level of assistance depends on the number
to elect to use a percent price preference for in-state
of children participating in school nutrition programs, and
products, as long as the preference is advertised and is
those eligible under federal guidelines for free or reduced-
no more than 10 percent above the price of comparable
price meals. Most school food service programs must be
out-of-state products. The preference must be adopted
self-supporting, meaning they must balance their budgets
by majority vote of a governmental body.60 For individual
with the financial assistance and food they receive from
purchases less than $25,000, the language also enables
the USDA and with any additional revenue they generate
a procurement officer for any local government, includ-
from school food sales.
ing school districts, to purchase local agricultural prod-
ucts directly from Massachusetts farm businesses without
The 2008 Farm Bill included a provision directing the U.S.
seeking quotes required under the normal bidding pro-
Secretary of Agriculture to encourage institutions oper-
cess. This preference has been adopted by a number of
ating federal Child Nutrition Programs, including schools
towns around the state.61 This statutory language may be
participating in the school lunch and breakfast programs,
in conflict with the USDA Food and Nutrition Service bid
to purchase “unprocessed locally grown and locally raised
requirements outlined above.
agricultural products.” This provision allows institutions
54
»» The policies include state colleges and universities • The Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic describes tiers
or only state agencies; and of procurement policy types:69
»» The language makes it explicit that food service »» Those that give in-state products a “tie goes to local”
management companies operating at state institu- preference: If all other factors— including quality,
tions are subject to the statute.63 quantity and cost — are equal, the state entity will
• In 2013, the USDA published its first Farm to School purchase the local product.
Census, aimed at establishing a national baseline of »» Those that go one step further than the “tie goes
farm to school activities at K-12 public schools. 64
One to local” laws, requiring a comparison of the bid
of the questions in the census asked respondents to price when in-state bidders are competing against
out-of-state vendors. These policies either provide a
indicate the percentage of food expenditures that
differential cost preference to in-state bidders by a
went toward locally produced food, including fluid
set percentage and/or increase the bid price of out-
milk. Available census data provides some insights of-state bidders by a set percentage.
about the extent of local procurement by school dis-
»» An alternative procurement mechanism could be a
tricts. State policymakers and advocates around the
statutory target requiring state agencies, colleges
region have an opportunity to work with the USDA’s and universities to purchase a certain percentage
Food and Nutrition Service to increase the response of their food from local sources, without specifying
rate and quality of information gathered through the the means by which they need to reach those tar-
next census, in 2015.65 gets. This type of preference has been adopted by
a number of states, including Illinois. According to
• Evaluate whether state procurement preferences
the Harvard clinic, this alternative has the advantage
for environmentally preferable products can and/or of explicitly including food management companies,
should be used to support procurement of in-state or which may otherwise assert that the preference is
New England-sourced food. not applicable to a private company.
• Develop a tiered regional procurement preference • Consider strengthening state procurement statutes
that could be adopted by each of the six New England and policies to:
states, where in-state food products receive the high- »» Go beyond the “tie goes to local” preference to
est preference, regional food products receive a lesser include a differential cost preference for in-state
preference, and out-of-region food products receive foods, or to create a statutory local food target;
no preference.66 Further research is needed on the »» Expressly include state colleges and universities,
constitutionality of such preferences to avoid running as well as state prisons, where they are not already
afoul of the dormant part of the U.S. Constitution’s included;
Commerce Clause.67 »» Clarify where not included now that any preference
• Explore the use of rebates or so-called volume-dis- applies to any entity procuring food for a state insti-
tution, including distributors and food management
count practices, which are widespread in the food
companies;
management industry and appear to be a barrier to
institutions sourcing more local and regional food. »» Have an agency, organization or university create
a method to track purchases of local food where
Under these arrangements, food management com-
those purchases are not already tracked, in order to
panies receive rebates from vendors and distributors
measure the impact of and compliance with state
in exchange for purchasing a certain amount from a
regulations; and
particular company. This practice incentivizes the use
»» Allow the purchase of local agricultural products
of large, typically national, vendors and distributors, as
directly from farm businesses without seeking
purchasing a high percentage of food from the prime
quotes through the normal bidding process, as long
vendor leads to more rebates. 68
as the purchases are worth less than $25,000 each,
for example. States could establish this kind of small
purchase threshold for state money spent on school
breakfast, lunch and snack programs.
100
nonlocal foods to accommodate local growers. Most affecting the sale of local farm and food products
state entities use one contract to procure all of their directly to consumers.
food, a practice that precludes local producers from
successfully bidding on the contracts because certain Direct retail marketing is also expanding consumer access
food products cannot be sourced locally. to healthy food.72 Farmers’ markets have been established
in many of the region’s food deserts, and nutrition incen-
• Consider adopting a regional procurement preference
tives are helping to stretch low-income consumers’ buying
by all six New England states. For more information
power at these markets. Electronic benefit transfer (EBT)
about regional procurement preferences, see the
machines are making it possible for recipients of federal
above Research and Analysis section.
and state nutrition programs to use their benefits at farm-
• Consider what role state government can play in edu- ers’ markets, farm stands and mobile produce trucks.
cating students about diet and nutrition. Such educa- Federal, state and, in some cases, municipal funding has
tion could include a focus on the climate implications been critical to these efforts; additional federal policy
of current diets and on what crops and foods can lead changes could have an even greater impact in this regard.
us into the next century, based on resource limitations
and human health needs.70 The vast majority of food that consumers buy to pre-
• Urge the U.S. Trade Representative and Members of pare at home continues to come from the region’s gro-
Congress to reject procurement commitments in inter- cery stores.73 The Vermont Farm to Plate Strategic Plan
national trade agreements that would limit the ability notes that “the business model of supermarkets, ware-
of state and local governments to institute local and house clubs, and supercenters requires low pricing, scale,
regional food procurement preferences. standardization, and fees to gain access to shelf space.
All of these criteria work against the capabilities and
interests of small farmers and processors.”74 The Rhode
Island Agricultural Partnership market survey, however,
found that consumers have a lower level of satisfaction
4.3 RETAIL MARKETS
with the quality of food purchased at chain supermarkets
• According to Vermont statutes, local and locally grown harvest or increased customer demand. Allowing this flex-
can refer to any product originating in Vermont or ibility is extremely important to farmers and appears to be
102
• Maine statutes define a farmers’ market as two or more commercial, provided that at least 35 percent of the prod-
farmers directly selling farm and food products to con- uct sales in dollar volume is attributable to products pro-
sumers. At least 75 percent of the products offered by a duced on the farm or farms of the stand owner.”94 Some
farmer must be “grown or processed by that person or municipal ordinances require a higher percentage of
under that person’s direction.” Any product not grown products sold be produced from the farm to qualify as a
or processed by the farmer must be directly purchased farm stand.
from another farmer, and the name and location of the
farm must be identified on the product or on a sign in In Massachusetts, the state’s zoning statute includes an
close proximity to the displayed product.88 agricultural exemption, ensuring that towns do not unrea-
sonably regulate commercial agriculture. Under that
• Massachusetts policy states that a market must have
exemption, a retail stand located on a farm is exempt from
farmers primarily selling products grown, produced or
local zoning requirements if at least 25 percent of the
raised by the farmers; there is no required percentage
products offered are produced from the farm and at least
of product that must be grown by the farm seller.89
50 percent are from Massachusetts.95 In both Connecticut
• New Hampshire defines a farmers’ market as two or and Rhode Island, where no similar state standard exists,
more vendors selling commodities that must include, agriculture advocates have developed and encouraged
but are not limited to, agricultural products.90 towns to adopt specific standards around farm stands and
• Rhode Island defines a farmers’ market as a place stores, with mixed results.96
where two or more farmers are “selling produce exclu-
sively grown on their own farms on a retail basis to NUTRITION PROGRAMS AND INCENTIVES
consumers.”91 Farmers who want to participate in the AT FA R M E R S ’ M A R K E T S , FA R M S TA N D S
markets administered by the Rhode Island Division of AND COMMUNITY SUPPORTED
Agriculture must follow rules stating that all products AG R I C U LT U R E FA R M S
must be grown in the state, and vendors must identify
Two important federal nutrition programs enable and
any produce they are selling that they did not grow
encourage participants to use their benefits to purchase
themselves.92
local food, primarily fruits and vegetables, at retail venues
• For the purposes of the Vermont Farmers’ Market
such as farmers’ markets, farm stands and CSA farms.
Association, a farmers’ market is defined in statutes as
Both of these programs are run in conjunction with state
an event at which two or more vendors of agricultural
agencies. In Connecticut and Massachusetts, they are
products sell their agricultural products to the public.93
connected to the departments of agriculture; in Maine
and Rhode Island, with the departments of health and
DEFINITION AND CRITERIA: human services; and in Vermont, with the Department for
FA R M S TA N D S A N D S T O R E S Children and Families.97 These programs are:
104
the challenges of scaling up to meet large retail and Processed Farm and Food Products
wholesale markets.108
• In Connecticut and Massachusetts, local health depart-
ments or boards of health are responsible for licensing
In 2010, the Obama administration created a federal
and inspecting any establishment that prepares food
Healthy Food Financing Initiative to promote a range of
— including goods prepared in farm home kitchens
interventions to expand access to nutritious foods. One
— for sale to the public. As a result, regulations and
such intervention was to develop and equip grocery stores
enforcement are not consistent and vary across both
and other small businesses and retailers to sell healthy
states. Farmers have voiced concern that some local
food in food deserts. The initiative has funded many
regulations are too restrictive. In 2011, legislators in
projects in the region, including a grant to the Madison
Connecticut took a first step to address the perceived
Park Development Corporation, which will develop a
burden on farmers working with various and some-
full-sized supermarket in the Roxbury neighborhood in
times inconsistent local boards of health. Legislation
Boston, Mass.109
(Public Act 11-191) eased the permit process for farm-
ers who sell at multiple markets in various municipal-
Similar funding is being proposed at the state level in
ities. The revision makes a farmer’s permit or license
Massachusetts to leverage Healthy Food Financing
to operate a food service establishment portable from
Initiative dollars. Legislation based on the recommenda-
one health district to any other in the state.112
tions of a statewide Grocery Access Task Force would
• The sale of processed foods is regulated at the state
authorize community development financial institutions
level in Maine, Rhode Island and Vermont. In Maine, the
to develop and implement flexible financing programs,
Department of Agriculture issues permits that may be
including loans, grants and technical assistance to sup-
needed for baked goods as well as for pickles, jams,
port the development, renovation and expansion of food
salsa and other acidified food. The agency determines
stores, farmers’ markets and other retailers selling healthy
if these items may be processed in a home kitchen or
food in underserved communities. 110
According to the
whether the producer needs a commercial process-
Massachusetts Public Health Association, the program
ing license. The agency also issues the mobile vendor
authorized by the bill would be flexible enough to address
license to sell from farmers’ markets.113 Departments of
community-specific needs, such as building a supermarket
health have this authority in Rhode Island and Vermont.
in a community where none currently exists; renovating a
corner store to allow for storage and display of fruits and • In New Hampshire, there is mixed regulation. Sixteen
vegetables; promoting a farmers’ market serving seniors; cities and towns are self-regulating municipalities
and developing mobile markets.111 This legislation would with local health officers who set regulations govern-
appear to enable, though not prioritize, projects aimed at ing the sale of processed foods and license any retail
expanding access to foods sourced from the region. food establishments, including farmers’ markets.114
The processing and sale of these foods in all other
municipalities in the state is regulated by the New
F O O D S A F E T Y A N D R E TA I L S A L E S
Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services.
States and municipalities around the region take different
Under these state regulations, the processing and sale
approaches in the regulation of farm and food products sold
of products from a home kitchen does not require a
at farmers’ markets, farm stands and other retail venues.
license for certain baked goods, pies, jams and jellies if
There has been little regulation to date around the sale of
that producer’s annual gross sales are less than $10,000.
fresh produce, but this will change under the federal Food
Safety Modernization Act. (For more information about the
Dairy products, meat, poultry and eggs
Food Safety Modernization Act, see Produce, section 3.1,
chapter 3.) The retail sale of milk and dairy products, meat, • Dairy products, meat, poultry and eggs are typically
seafood, poultry, eggs and processed foods are typically allowed to be sold at farmers’ markets. Each state
regulated already. Below are some of the state statutes and defines what it permits differently:
regulations that govern the sale of foods at farmers’ mar- »» Statutes in Connecticut allow for the sale of a range
kets, farm stands and farm stores. of farm products — including meat, milk and cheese
— at “certified farmers’ markets.”115
106
• Uniform state zoning standards for farm stands and markets. Doing so would allow WIC participants to
farm stores, or model regulations for towns, could help spend any of their fruit and vegetable allotment each
municipalities that do not have the capacity to pay for month at farmers’ markets instead of only at retail
professional planners. stores. The WIC cash value voucher is a monthly ben-
efit and is available to all WIC participants in all states.
• The federal Healthy Food Financing Initiative and
similar state financing programs, such as proposed in
Senate Bill 380 in Massachusetts, should give priority
to projects that offer a double bottom line of expand-
ing access to healthy food for underserved commu- 4.4 INSTITUTIONAL MARKETS
nities and expanding market opportunities to farmers
in the state or the region. Consider the relevance of
benefit corporation legislation as well.
Introduction
• The Senate version of the 2013 federal Farm Bill pro- New England’s institutions — including colleges, universi-
vides a significant expansion of federal nutrition incen- ties, public and private schools, day care and health cen-
tives, creating Hunger-Free Communities incentive ters, assisted living facilities, hospitals, prisons and gov-
grants through the existing Hunger-Free Communities ernment and corporate dining facilities — purchase more
Program. This incentive program would provide an than $2 billion in food annually.124 Increasing the percent
average of $20 million annually over the next five of locally and regionally grown food purchased by these
years to increase SNAP participants’ purchase of institutions could have a significant economic impact on
fruits and vegetables at direct-to-consumer markets. New England. Data produced by food system analyst Ken
Organizations carrying out the program must secure Meter shows that a 20 percent increase in the local food
matching funds, as the federal share cannot exceed 50 served in New England’s public schools could return an
percent of the cost of carrying out the activity. Priority additional $30 million to the region’s farm economy.125
will be given to projects that: The Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont’s
recent institutional purchasing study identified more than
»» Maximize the share of funds used for direct incen-
$11 million in spending that could be replaced with local
tives to participants;
fruits, vegetables and eggs.126
»» Use direct-to-consumer sales marketing;
»» Demonstrate a track record of designing and imple- Across the region, many institutions have made signif-
menting successful nutrition incentive programs icant strides in sourcing food locally. The University of
that connect low-income consumers and agricul-
Massachusetts Amherst, for example, sources more than
tural producers;
28 percent of its produce locally and has been increas-
»» Provide locally or regionally produced fruits and ing its percentage every year.127 According to the dining
vegetables; and
service staff, sourcing food locally and making its menu
»» Are located in underserved communities. more innovative and seasonal has helped the university
• The House version of the current farm bill provides improve the profitability of its dining service by increasing
far less funding for nutrition incentives — $5 million — the number of meal plans sold. The university currently
within the Community Food Projects program.123 sells 16,075 meal plans even though only 12,000 students
live on campus, meaning that 4,075 off-campus and com-
• The Senate version of the federal farm bill reauthorizes
muter students now purchase meal plans.128 USDA’s recent
the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program and
Farm to School Census shows a growing number of public
continues mandatory funding of $20.6 million annu-
schools sourcing food locally. One of them, Vermont’s
ally. (The Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program is autho-
Burlington Supervisory School District, spends 35 percent
rized under separate legislation.) The House version
of its budget on local food.129
essentially melds the two programs, which is likely to
result in reduced funding overall. States that currently
Still, significant barriers to expanding institutional markets
are not participating in the Farmers’ Market Nutrition
in the region remain. Among those identified by interview-
Program should be encouraged to participate.
ees, the Vermont Farm to Plate Plan and the Harvard Food
• States not already doing so should consider allow-
ing the use of WIC cash value vouchers at farmers’
108
Education; Green Mountain Farm to School; Upper Valley U S DA F O O D S , D E PA R T M E N T O F
Farm to School; and Food Connects. All of these partners DEFENSE FRESH, AND FRESH FRUIT
focus on developing farm to school programming for the A N D V E G E TA B L E P R O G R A M S
classroom, cafeteria and community.138 A recent grant
As discussed above, public schools that participate in
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will
the National School Lunch Program receive both finan-
enable the Agency of Agriculture to support more pro-
cial assistance and assistance in the form of food prod-
gramming in this area, including an expanded grant pro-
ucts purchased by the USDA. The lunch program provides
gram for schools and regional farm to school projects.139
schools per-meal cash reimbursements, the level of which
Vermont also has a statewide Farm to School Network
depends on the number of free, reduced-price or fully
that links practitioners through learning experiences and
paid meals the school serves. The amount of food that a
resource dissemination. In addition, strong regional farm
school receives through the USDA Foods Program — its
to school organizations such as Green Mountain Farm to
“entitlement value” — is similarly dictated by the number
School, Upper Valley Farm to School and Food Connects
of income-eligible lunches the school serves. Foods
provide support to dozens of schools, through educa-
received from USDA make up 15 to 20 percent of the food
tional efforts and distribution of local food.
on school lunch plates.142 Each year the program spends
about $2 billion on food purchases, which, in addition to
Federal Programs
public schools, are donated to food banks and other feed-
• The USDA’s Farm to School program, established in ing organizations.143
2010 through the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, is
operated by the Food and Nutrition Service, which The USDA Foods Program provides products to schools
has a Northeast regional office in Boston. A Farm to in two different ways. Through a state coordinator — typ-
School regional lead in that office is available to pro- ically a designee from a state Department of Education —
vide support to state agencies and other entities in the states order from a master list of available foods. Products
region. The Farm to School program provides $5 mil- that do not require additional processing are then shipped
lion in annual grants to help school districts across the to state warehouses. School districts are then notified of
country further develop relevant programming. New the products available and choose what to order, draw-
England programs and projects received seven grants ing down from their federal entitlement dollars. Because
during fiscal year 2013, the first year grants were many USDA foods are purchased raw and in bulk, schools
awarded.140 Recipients included the Vermont Agency often need them processed in some way. Processor selec-
of Agriculture — to help focus the efforts of regional tion varies by state: In some states, school districts select
food hubs on school food procurement — and the which processors they want to use for which products,
Portland Public School District, which plans to update and the state then contracts with the processors; in
central kitchen equipment and develop trainings and others, the state coordinator decides which processors
certifications in order to become a large-volume pro- may be used. Districts often purchase additional quanti-
cessor of local foods. ties of the same product from processors, and, in most
states, can combine their USDA Foods order with their
• The Farm to School program recently completed the
commercial product processing orders. The processor
first-ever National Farm to School Census, surveying
then invoices districts for the full commercial bid price of
local school districts about their farm to school activ-
each processed case, minus the value of the USDA foods.
ities, including local food purchases and school gar-
Most participating processors operate in more than one
dens.141 The census shows the strength of state and
state and have national agreements with USDA.144 While
local farm to school programming in New England. In
some of these processors are located in New England, few
five of the six New England states, more than 75 per-
are handling food grown in New England.
cent of school districts participate in farm to school
activities. The census has detailed information about
Many school districts in the region find it challenging to
percentage and types of local food purchases that
make full use of their USDA Foods entitlement dollars
should be useful to state policymakers in considering
because of what kinds of foods are available and when.
additional policy needs and emphases in this area.
Districts must also pay storage and transportation fees
associated with USDA foods. As a result, millions of USDA
Because fresh fruits and vegetables are perishable, they FINE is a six-state collaboration to strengthen the regional
make up just 10.5 percent of foods distributed through food system by increasing the demand for and use of New
the USDA Foods Program. The Department of Defense England food by New England institutions. FINE sprang
(DoD) Fresh Program was created in the 1990s to address from regionwide discussions in 2010 between the state
this problem by making use of the department’s exist- leads for the National Farm to School Network; the six
ing supply chain infrastructure to supply fresh fruits and state commissioners and secretaries of agriculture; the
vegetables to public schools. The DoD Fresh Program New England Commission on Land Conservation and the
offers more than 60 varieties of fruits and vegetables, New England Governors’ Conference; the USDA; and pri-
and schools across the country can use their USDA Foods vate philanthropies. USDA Rural Development provided
entitlement dollars to purchase fresh fruits and vegeta- seed funding for Farm to Institution New England, and
however, place limits on the number of schools and the ners include federal and state agencies, land grant univer-
percentage of entitlement dollars that can be spent sities and nonprofit organizations.
used in Vermont, to $2.7 million used in Connecticut. The addressing key institutional barriers. As mentioned above,
program uses two contract vendors in New England, and a FINE report on DoD Fresh spurred changes in that
participating schools or state administrators place weekly program’s ordering system to help buyers identify local
or monthly orders through an online ordering system.151 and regional produce. A FINE farm-to-college project is
focused in part on procurement changes. (For more infor-
A 2012 study of the program done by Farm to Institution mation about procurement policies, see the Purchasing
New England found that DoD Fresh’s ordering system, and Procurement Preferences section above.) A current
110
regional supply chain project is designed to influence the Research and Analysis
purchasing decisions of corporate food service manage-
• Analyze the USDA Foods Program, including:
ment companies that operate a majority of institutional
»» State administrative costs associated with the
cafeterias in New England.154
program;
1
Bruce A. Sherman, Connecticut Grown: Preserving its Integrity and Reliability for Success, Connecticut Weekly
Agricultural Report 1, 3 (May 29, 2013), http://www.ct.gov/doag/lib/doag/May_29_2013_EMAIL.pdf.
2
Vermont Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, Vt. Sustainable Jobs Fund, 98 (May 2013), http://www.vtfoodatlas.com/assets/
plan_sections/files/3.1_Understanding%20Consumer%20Demand_MAY%202013.pdf.
3
CT Grown Program, Conn. Dep’t of Agric., http://www.ct.gov/doag/cwp/view.asp?a=3243&q=398984
(last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
4
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Average Monthly Participation (Persons), USDA,
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/15SNAPpartPP.htm (last updated Dec. 6, 2013).
5
Markets & Food & The New Hampshire Agricultural Marketing Council, Plan for Developing and Implementing a Buy
Local New Hampshire Agriculture Program, N.H. Dep’t of Agric. (2009),
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5077667.
6
Grow Connecticut Farms: Developing, Diversifying and Promoting Agriculture, Conn. Governor’s Council on Agric. Dev.,
27 (2012), http://www.ct.gov/doag/lib/doag/boards_commissions_councils/gcf/grow_ct_farms_3_6_2013_low.pdf.
7
Id.
8
Commonwealth Quality Massachusetts, Mass. Dep’t of Agric. Resources, http://www.mass.gov/agr/cqp/sectors/
produce/index.htm; Interview with Michael Botelho, CQP Coordinator at MDAR (July 9, 2013).
9
New Hampshire Made Criteria, http://www.nhmade.com/membershipcriteria.cfm (last visited Dec. 27).
10
E-mail Communication with Lorraine Merrill and Gale McWilliams Jelle, N.H. Dep’t of Food and Agric. (Dec. 2013).
11
Communication with Peter Susi, R.I. Division of Agric. (Jan. 14, 2014).
12
Vermont Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, supra note 2, at 118.
13
Paul Patterson, State-Grown Promotion Programs: Fresher? Better?, Choices Magazine (2006),
http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2006-1/grabbag/2006-1-08.htm.
14
E-mail Communication with John Harker, Director of Market Development, Me Dep’t of Agric., Conservation and
Forestry (Dec. 2013).
15
Id.; see also Connecticut Governor’s Council on Agricultural Development,
http://www.ct.gov/doag/cwp/view.asp?a=3595&q=423842.
16
Get Real. Get Maine!, http://www.getrealmaine.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/home.showpage/pageID/7/index.htm
(last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
17
John Harker et al., The Agricultural Creative Economy: A Report to the Second Regular Session of the 123rd
Legislature (Jan. 2008).
18
Rules Governing the Agricultural Development Grant Fund, Conservation and Forestry, Division of Markets and
Production Development, Me. Dep’t of Agric., Chapter 33, http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/01/chaps01.htm.
19
E-mail Communication with John Harker, supra note 14.
20
The Rhode Island Local Agriculture and Seafood Act, Pub. L. No. 2102-038 (Apr. 2012),
http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/PublicLaws/law12/law12038.htm.
21
Dig in Vermont, http://www.diginvt.com/ (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
22
Annual Report 2011, Me. Lobster Promotion Council, 13 (2011)
http://www.lobsterfrommaine.com/pictures/pdfs/6-annualreport2011.pdf.
23
Second Annual Report, R.I. Seafood Marketing Collaborative, 2 (Oct. 2013),
http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bnatres/agricult/rismc/2013rep.pdf.
24
About Us, Food Export Northeast,
http://www.foodexport.org/AboutUs/content.cfm?ItemNumber=925&navItemNumber=509.
25
Governor Deval Patrick Signs Executive Order Establishing Public Market Commission, Office of Gov. Deval Patrick
(Aug. 4, 2011), http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2011/executive-order-establishes-public-
market-comm.html.
26
Request for Proposals, Mass. Executive Office of Energy and Envt’l Affairs (Dec. 2011),
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/agr/public-market/docs/rfp-for-public-market-operator.pdf.
112
27
Id.
28
Grow Connecticut Farms: Developing, Diversifying, and Promoting Agriculture, supra note 6, at 24.
29
Id.
30
Local Hero Program, Cmty. Involved in Sustainable Agric.,
http://www.buylocalfood.org/resources-for-farmers/local-hero-program/ (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
31
Local Hero Membership Benefits, Cmty. Involved in Sustainable Agric., http://www.buylocalfood.org/
resources-for-farmers/local-hero-program/local-hero-membership-benefits/ (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
32
Funding Partners, Cmty. Involved in Sustainable Agric., http://www.buylocalfood.org/about/funding-partners/
(last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
33
Harvest New England, http://www.harvestnewengland.org/ (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
34
Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
http://www.ag.senate.gov/issues/agriculture-reform-food-and-jobs-act-of-2012; Farm Bill,
House Committee on Agriculture, http://agriculture.house.gov/farmbill (2013).
35
Farmers Markets and Local Food Marketing, USDA, http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/FSMIP
(last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
36
Harker, supra note 17.
37
Id.
38
Interview with Phil Korman, Executive Director at Community Involved in Sustainable Agriculture (July 11, 2013).
39
Id.
40
Id.
41
Id.
42
Harker, supra note 17.
43
E-mail Communication with George E. Krivda, Jr., Legislative Program Manager, Connecticut Department of
Agriculture (Sep. 24, 2012).
44
Conn. Pub. Act No. 13-177 (June 25, 2013).
45
7 M.R.S.A. 8-A § 211 (2007).
46
See 7 M.R.S.A. 8-A § 214 (2007); e-mail communication with John Harker, Maine Department of Agriculture
(Sept. 24, 2012).
47
Establishing an Environmental Purchasing Policy, Exec. Order No. 515 (2009),
http://www.mass.gov/governor/legislationeexecorder/executiveorder/executive-order-no-515.html.
48
N.H. Senate Bill 141, http://legiscan.com/NH/text/SB141/id/721696.
49
Additionally, R.I.G.L. § 44-30-27 provides an income tax credit to individuals or entities selling local food products to
local education agencies.
50
The Rhode Island Local Agriculture and Seafood Act, supra note 20.
51
Communication with Ken Ayars, Chief, Rhode Island Division of Agriculture (Nov. 6, 2013).
52
No. 38, An Act Relating to the Viability of Vermont Agriculture § 3 (May 21, 2007),
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2008/acts/ACT038.HTM.
53
Farm to Plate Strategic Plan: Executive Summary, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, 44 (July 2011),
http://www.vsjf.org/assets/files/Agriculture/Strat_Plan/F2P%20Executive%20Summary_6.27.11_Small%20File.pdf.
54
Local Food for Local Government: Considerations in Giving Preference to Locally Grown Food, ChangeLab Solutions, 5
(2012), http://changelabsolutions.org/sites/phlpnet.org/files/Local_Food_Guide_FINAL_20120328.pdf.
55
Program Data: Child Nutrition Tables, USDA Food and Nutrition Serv., http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/cnpmain.htm
(last visited Jan. 28, 2013).
56
Communication with Dana Hudson, VT FEED and State Lead for the National Farm to School Network (Dec. 10, 201).
57
Procurement Geographic Preference Q&As, USDA Food and Nutrition Serv.,
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/Policy-Memos/2011/SP18-2011_os.pdf (last visited Jan. 13, 2013).
59
Id.
60
M.G.L.c. 30B § 20 (2012).
61
At least three municipalities have passed a preferential purchasing resolution. Many other school districts reference
the state legislation, which allows them to avoid getting quotes for agricultural products. Communication with
Simca Horwitch, Massachusetts Farm to School Project (Nov. 7, 2013).
62
Communication with Karen Hansen-Kuhn, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (Jan. 6, 2013).
63
Increasing Local Food Procurement by Massachusetts State Colleges and Universities, Harvard Food Law and Policy
Clinic, 14—15 (Oct. 2012), http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/foodpolicyinitiative/files/2011/09/Increasing-Local-Food-
Procurement-by-Mass-State-Colleges-FINAL2.pdf.
64
About the Census, U.S. Dep’t of Agric. Food and Nutrition Serv.,
http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/census#/page/about?scroll=viz2 (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
65
Id.
66
See Tools for Advocates: Increasing Local Food Procurement by State Agencies, Colleges and Universities, Harvard
Food Law and Policy Clinic (July 2013), http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/foodpolicyinitiative/files/2013/08/Local-
Procurement-Handout_FINAL_WEB-FRIENDLY.pdf.
67
Cf. Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, 730 F.3d 1070, 1107 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding, in part, that California’s
low-carbon fuel standard, which seeks to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels sold in the state, does not facially discrimi-
nate against out-of-state fuels under the dormant Commerce Clause). The appellate court remanded to the district court
to determine whether the standard nonetheless discriminates “in purpose or in practical effect,” or “imposes a burden on
interstate commerce that is ‘clearly excessive’ in relation to its local benefits.” Id. at 1078 (citation omitted). Depending on
the case’s final outcome, the decision could provide a road map for establishing regional food programs that would be
consistent with Commerce Clause requirements.
68
See Tools for Advocates: Increasing Local Food Procurement by State Agencies, Colleges and Universities, supra note 66.
69
Id.
70
For a deeper discussion of this issue, see generally Bret Birdsong, From Food Miles to Moneyball: How we Should be
Thinking About Food and Climate, 65 Me. L. Rev. 2 (2013).
71
Market Analysis of Direct to Consumer Sales through Farm Stands and Farmers Markets: Preliminary Findings, Rhode
Island Agricultural Partnership, Acadia Consulting Group (Nov. 2013).
72
See Double Value Coupon Program: Increasing Food Access and Local Farm Businesses Nationwide, Wholesome Wave
(2012), https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9xO2Xo4OIC4cF80VC1YSzdQY0U/edit.
73
See Vermont Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, supra note 2, at 94; see also Market Analysis of Direct to Consumer Sales
through Farm Stands and Farmers Markets, supra note 71 (indicating that chain supermarkets are the place where most
respondents shop for food and are also their favorite place to shop).
74
Id.
75
Market Analysis of Direct to Consumer Sales through Farm Stands and Farmers Markets, supra note 71.
76
Vermont Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, supra note 2, at 102.
77
Id. at 94.
78
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-38.
79
7 M.R.S. § 443-A, http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/7/title7sec443-A.html.
80
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 426:5, http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xl/426/426-mrg.htm.
81
9 V.S.A. § 2465a, http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=09&Chapter=063&Section=02465a.
82
USDA Directory Records More Than 7,800 Farmers Markets National Resource Helps More Americans Connect with
Local Farmers, USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (Aug. 2012), http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetch
TemplateData.do?template=TemplateU&navID=&page=Newsroom&resultType=Details&dDocName=STELPRDC5099756&
dID=173232&wf=false&description=USDA+Directory+Records+More+Than+7%2C800+Farmers+Markets++++National+
Resource+Helps+More+Americans+Connect+with+Local+Farmers&topNav=Newsroom&leftNav=&rightNav1=&rightNav2=.
83
Vermont Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, supra note 2, at 98.
84
Market Analysis of Direct to Consumer Sales through Farm Stands and Farmers Markets, supra note 71.
85
Id.
114
86
Farmers’ Market Reference Guide, Conn. Dep’t of Agric. (Apr. 2012),
http://www.ct.gov/doag/lib/doag/marketing_files/Complete_FM_Ref._Guide_04-25-2012.pdf.
87
Id.
88
7 M.R.S. § 415.
89
Policy for Massachusetts Farmers’ Markets, Mass. Dep’t of Agric. Resources,
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/agr/markets/farmersmarkets/farmers-markets-policy-final.pdf.
90
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 21:34-a.
91
R.I.G.L. § 21-27-1(5).
92
Rules and Policies for all DEM/Division of Agriculture Run Farmers Markets, R.I. Division of Agric.,
http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bnatres/agricult/pdf/fmrkrule.pdf (last visited July 7, 2013).
93
6 V.S.A. §§ 5001–02; VTFMA Membership Benefits, Vt. Farmers Market Ass’n,
http://www.vtfma.org/index.php/membership (last visited July 7, 2013).
94
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 21:34a(III).
95
See M.G.L c. 40A § 3.
96
Planning for Agriculture: A Guide for Connecticut Municipalities. Am. Farmland Trust (2012), http://www.ct.gov/doag/
lib/doag/farmland_preservation_/2012_planning_for_ag.pdf; A Vision for Rhode Island Agriculture: Five Year Strategic
Plan, R.I. Agric. P’ship (May 2011), http://students.cs.uri.edu/~rhodyag/docs/RI_agriculture_5yr_strategicplan.pdf.
97
WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program State Agencies, as of September 2013, USDA Food and Nutrition Serv.,
http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/Contacts/farm.HTM (last visited Dec. 27, 213).
98
WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program Fact Sheet, USDA Food and Nutrition Serv. (Apr. 2012),
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/WIC-FMNP-Fact-Sheet.pdf.
99
Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program Fact Sheet, USDA Food and Nutrition Serv. (June 2012),
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SFMNP-Fact-Sheet.pdf.
100
Communication with Ken Ayars, Chief of the Rhode Island Division of Agriculture (Dec. 30, 2013).
101
Id.
102
Community Food Projects Competitive Grant Program Project Synopsis, USDA Nt’l Inst. of Food and Agric.,
http://www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/cfp/cfp_synopsis.html.
103
E-mail Communication with John Waite, Director of the Franklin County, Massachusetts Community Development
Corporation (Dec. 2013).
104
Double Value Coupon Program, supra note 72.
105
Id.
106
Id.
107
For a complete list of funding that has been provided through these programs in the region, see the USDA Know Your
Farmer, Know Your Food (KYF) Compass, http://www.usda.gov/maps/maps/kyfcompassmap.htm.
108
E-mail Communication with Ned Porter, Policy Director for Wholesome Wave (Dec. 2013); see also Maine Agricultural
Marketing Loan Fund, http://www.maine.gov/dacf/ard/grants/agricultural_marketing.shtml (last visited Dec. 27, 2013);
Vermont Working Lands Enterprise Initiative, http://workinglands.vermont.gov/ (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
109
FY 2012 CED HFFI projects, Dep’t of Health and Human Serv.,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/fy-2012-ced-hffi-grantees.
110
Testimony of Maddie Ribble, Massachusetts Public Health Association, in Support of S.360, An Act Relative to Food
Trusts, before the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture (Oct. 25, 2013).
111
Id.
112
Farmers’ Market Reference Guide, supra note 86.
113
Quality Assurance and Regulations, Me. Dep’t of Agric., Food and Rural Resources,
http://www.maine.gov/agriculture/qar/index.html (July 8, 2013).
114
New Hampshire Self-Inspecting Cities & Towns, N.H. Dep’t of Health and Human Serv. (Oct. 2012).
http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dphs/fp/documents/selfinspect.pdf.
115
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-6r, Pub. Act 06-52.
117
See Mass. Dep’t of Public Health, Food Protection Program Policies, Procedures and Guidelines 1–4 (Apr. 30, 2013),
http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/environmental/foodsafety/farmer-market-guidelines.pdf.
118
N.H. Rev. Stat. § 21:34-a.
119
See RI Farmers Market Vendor Guide, Farm Fresh Rhode Island!,
http://www.farmfreshri.org/about/markets_vendorguide.php (last visited Jan. 14, 2014).
120
11 V.S.A. § 991.
121
Local Food and Community Self-Governance Ordinance of 2011, Town of Blue Hill (effective Apr. 1, 2011), http://www.
farmtoconsumer.org/news_wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BlueHill_LocalFoodOrd_2011.pdf (last visited Nov. 4, 2013).
122
State v. Brown, No. CV-11-70 (Me. Super. Ct., Han. Cty., Apr. 27, 2013).
123
Ned Porter, supra note 108.
124
Farm to Institution, www.farmtoinstitution.org (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
125
2010 Report to the Governors, New England Blue Ribbon Commission on Land Conservation, New England Governors’
Conference, Inc., 18 (June 2010), http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/2010_clc_report.pdf.
126
Scaling up Vermont’s Local Food Production, Distribution, and Marketing, NOFA Vermont, 5 (Oct. 2012),
http://nofavt.org/sites/default/files/F2Ireport-exec-web.pdf.
127
Increasing Local Food Procurement by Massachusetts State Colleges and Universities, supra note 63, at 28–29.
128
Id.
129
The Farm to School Census, http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/census#/district/vt (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
130
Connecticut Farm to School Program, Conn. Dep’t of Agric.,
http://www.ct.gov/doag/cwp/view.asp?a=2225&q=299424 (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
131
Maine Profile, National Farm to School Network, http://www.farmtoschool.org/state-home.php?id=25
(last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
132
Massachusetts Profile, National Farm to School Network, http://www.farmtoschool.org/state-home.php?id=27
(last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
133
Communication with Ken Ayars, Chief of the Rhode Island Division of Agriculture (Dec. 30, 2013).
134
Id.
135
Rhode Island Profile, Farm to School Network, http://www.farmtoschool.org/state-home.php?id=36
(last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
136
Communication with Ken Ayars, Chief of the Rhode Island Division of Agriculture (Dec. 30, 2013).
137
Id.
138
Vermont Profile, Farm to School Network, http://www.farmtoschool.org/state-home.php?id=24
(last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
139
Vermont Food Atlas, Vt. Sustainable Jobs Fund, 112 (May 2013),
http://www.vtfoodatlas.com/assets/plan_sections/files/3.1_Understanding%20Consumer%20Demand_MAY%202013.pdf.
140
USDA Farm to School FY2013 Grant Awards, USDA, 12 (2013),
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/F2S_Grants-FY2013.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
141
See Healthy Habits Take Root, USDA Farm to School Census,
http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/census#/national (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
142
USDA Foods in Massachusetts, Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic, 1 (Apr. 2013),
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/foodpolicyinitiative/files/2013/04/USDA-Foods-in-Massachusetts-FINAL.pdf.
143
USDA Food and Nutrition Service USDA Foods Infographic,
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/PAMZ_USDA7175_Infographic_06mdFINAL.PDF (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
144
USDA Farm to School FY2013 Grant Awards, supra note 140, at 13.
145
Id. at 1.
146
Winston Brayley et al., A 2012 Farm Bill Position Paper 1 (Apr. 2012),
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwTmCA5JPz4nb2ZKaklDbEZEN28/edit?usp=drive_web.
116
147
Id. at 3.
148
See USDA Foods in Massachusetts, supra note 142.
149
Id.
150
Communication with Emily Broad Leib, Director, Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic (Dec. 2013).
151
Id.
152
Id.
153
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Fact Sheet, USDA Food and Nutrition Serv., http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/
files/FFVPFactSheet.pdf (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
154
Farm to Institution, www.farmtoinstitution.org (last visited Dec. 27, 2013).
155
Id.
156
Increasing Local Food Procurement by Massachusetts State Colleges and Universities, supra note 63, at 24.
Wa s t e S t r e a m s
W
hile organic material is extremely useful for agricultural soil amendments, current waste
stream systems lead to excessive discarding of organic material as waste. Organic
material can be composted, producing a valuable agricultural commodity: Researchers
have found that on average, organic soil amendments like compost significantly improve soil quality
and agricultural output. Studies show that organic soil amendments decrease soil bulk density while
increasing soil nitrogen content, soil water retention, and even resulting crop yields compared to
conventional fertilizers.1 Organic material can also be “fed” to anaerobic digesters, producing heat,
electricity, and biosolids that are also useful as soil amendments. Finally, beneficial reuse of organics
keeps huge volumes of organic material out of rapidly filling New England landfills.
Moreover, when food scrap and other organic material are sent to landfills, they decompose and give
off methane, a greenhouse gas more than 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide. In fact, landfills are
the third-largest source of methane emissions
in the United States, responsible for the equiv-
alent of over 100 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide per year.2 One study has estimated Highlights
that diverting 75% of organics from the waste
stream to composting “would cause a dramatic • As states prepare to enact policies sup-
decrease in methane, to as much as one-quar- porting the beneficial reuse of organ-
ter the business-as-usual rate.” And using com-
3 ics, they can identify existing organics
post as an agricultural soil amendment does infrastructure, including on-farm and
not just avoid methane emissions from land- commercial composting operations and
fills – it actually increases the soil’s capacity to anaerobic digesters.
store more carbon, helping to keep it out of the
• States can also create statewide incen-
atmosphere.4
tives for local action: Increase tipping
fees while providing funds for food
In sum, the beneficial reuse of organic mate-
scrap pickup.
rials – in particular, composting – allows for
healthy soil, less landfilling, and reduced green-
• Most importantly, to ensure organics
house gas emissions. This chapter explores pol-
are beneficially reused rather than
icies already in place throughout New England
wasted, each state can phase in a state-
that support beneficial reuse of organics, and
wide ban on landfilling food scrap and
actions states can take to ensure that organics
other organics.
are diverted from the waste stream.
120
Massachusetts’s recent and thorough regulatory changes As states draft or revise their own organics-diversion laws,
deserve especially close attention. In addition to planning they should be aware of the potential impact of federal
carefully, the state has fashioned well-balanced compost- regulations. The Food Safety Modernization Act regula-
ing regulations that differentiate among composting sites tions, in particular, are likely to set requirements for com-
and among operations of different sizes. Massachusetts post materials used on crops and to affect how farms may
has also set policies to ensure that composting inputs and apply compost to those crops.
outputs are free of harmful toxins.
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
Site
Stand-alone composting facilities in Massachusetts On-farm anaerobic digestion is not only helping to reduce
are generally subject to robust solid waste regulations the amount of organic matter being landfilled, but also
on-farm composting is subject to regulation by the state ers are dealt with in more detail in Energy Efficiency and
Department of Agriculture but exempt from solid-waste Renewable Energy, section 2.2, chapter 2.
1
S. Brown, K. Kurtz, C. Cogger & A. Bary, Land Application – a true path to zero waste?, Washington State University,
October 2009, https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0907059.pdf; see also S Thompson & S Tanapat,
Modeling waste management options for greenhouse gas reduction, J. of Env. Informatics, January 2005, 6:16-24.
2
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2011, U.S. EPA (April 12, 2013),
http://epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2013-Main-Text.pdf.
3
See Thompson & Tanapat, supra note 1.
4
See Brown et al., supra note 1.
5
S.B. 1116, 2011 Sess. (Conn. 2011), available at http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/ACT/PA/2011PA-00217-R00SB-01116-PA.htm.
6
10 V.S.A. § 6605k(b).
7
Id.
8
Id. at § 6605k(c).
9
Final Amendments to 310 CMR 19.000 Regulations, Mass. Dep’t of Envtl. Protection (Jan. 31, 2014),
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/service/regulations/wbreg14.pdf.
10
MassDEP Organics Study and Action Plan, Mass. Dep’t of Envtl. Protection (May 10, 2012),
http://www.mass.gov/dep/public/committee/orgplanf.pdf.
11
See 310 CMR §§ 16.00 et seq. (2012).
12
Jane Kay, S.F.’s Scraps Bring Joy to Area Farmers, S. F. Chronicle, Apr. 1, 2009,
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-s-scraps-bring-joy-to-area-farmers-3246412.php.
13
Jeremy Carroll, San Francisco Reports Record 80% Diversion Rate, Waste & Recycling News, Oct. 5, 2012,
http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/article/20121005/NEWS02/121009939/san-francisco-reports-record-80-diversion-rate.
14
Draft revised Rhode Island composting regulations are expected to be released for comment later in 2014.
15
310 CMR § 16.00 et seq. (2012).
16
Id. at § 16.03(2)(c)(1).
17
Id. at § 16.03(2)(c)(2).
18
Id. at § 16.04(3)(a)(5).
122
Chapter 6
A
thriving regional food system depends in part on the capacity of governments and stake-
holders to work together around planning, policies and programs. Coordinating certain
policies, programs, tools and incentives across New England is critical to increasing pro-
duction and market opportunities, reducing market barriers and enhancing regional food security and
self-reliance.1 Growing enthusiasm for regional food solutions has generated considerable interest in iden-
tifying appropriate institutions and mechanisms for promoting regional (i.e., multistate) coordination.
This section considers New England states’ existing efforts to build a regional food system and addi-
tional work they can undertake to achieve food systems goals. This section also examines several exam-
ples of regionwide approaches and structures. Regional frameworks for multistate cooperation and
coordination range from informal to quite formal. Several frameworks build on the legal authority and
democratic accountability of government entities. Others, such as associations and networks, stand
outside government, although governments may participate. The section concludes by illustrating sev-
eral areas that are ripe for new or renewed regional collaboration, coordination or policy efforts.
New England Food Policy : Frameworks for Regional Food System Coordination · 123
serious consideration and may be vital to achieving mean- As creatures of federal and state law, interstate compacts
ingful solutions, the region would also benefit from lever- can be regulatory in nature. An example of a regulatory
aging existing regional food system networks and initia- interstate compact is the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
tives to address emerging and shared challenges for which Compact, which governs commercial fishing in the waters
multistate coordination may be helpful or necessary. off 15 states on the Atlantic seaboard.6 Compacts also may
serve an advisory function, as in the case of the Bay State-
Ocean State Compact, which established an interstate
commission with representatives from Massachusetts,
Rhode Island and the U.S. Environmental Protection
6.1 MODELS FOR REGIONAL
Agency to study, develop and make recommenda-
COORDINATION
tions about the environmental and economic aspects of
The following pages explore a few potentially applicable Narragansett Bay and Mount Hope Bay.7
models for regional governance, policymaking and coop-
eration in agricultural markets and other contexts. The chief impediment to developing interstate compacts
is the substantial effort needed to enact identical com-
pact legislation in each party state and to reach complete
I N T E R S TAT E C O M PAC T S , C O M M I S S I O N S
regional consensus on the compact’s mission, author-
AND AUTHORITIES
ity and goals. If the compact establishes regulatory or
The preeminent binding form of interstate gover- other legal powers implicating federal authority — such
nance is the interstate compact. Referenced in the U.S. as those associated with traditional farm bill programs
Constitution, interstate compacts are contracts between — and/or seeks a federal funding mechanism, it requires
states and must be authorized by Congress in many Congressional approval, which can prove a potentially sig-
cases.3 Compacts address a range of policy and admin- nificant challenge. If an interstate compact is merely advi-
istrative issues, from boundary disputes and mutual nat- sory in its mission, it may suffer from a lack of financial
ural resources to criminal extradition and taxation. The resources or a lack of state commitment.
National Center for Interstate Compacts (NCIC) counts
200 active interstate compacts, with more than 30 com- Example: Northeast Dairy Compact
pacts involving contiguous states.4 According to the NCIC: The most prominent recent example of an interstate com-
pact addressing an agricultural issue is the Northeast Dairy
• Interstate compacts are powerful, durable, flexible Compact, which was developed to fix minimum prices for
tools to promote and ensure cooperation among the liquid milk at higher levels than the federal minimum price
states, while avoiding federal intervention and pre- and to promote the region’s dairy industry. The Northeast
emption of state powers. Compacts offer the following Dairy Compact was approved by Congress in 1996. It per-
benefits: tained to the six New England states and allowed mem-
bership in the compact to expand to New York, New
»» They settle interstate disputes.
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, if
»» They provide state-developed solutions to complex
the prospective state was contiguous to a member state,
public policy problems,
and if the compact was approved by the state legisla-
»» unlike federally imposed mandates.
ture of the prospective state and Congress. No additional
»» They respond to national priorities in consultation or states joined. An interstate commission authorized by the
in partnership with the compact regulated milk prices in New England until 2001,
»» federal government. when Congressional authorization expired.8
124
Typically authorized by Congress, interstate commis- Under the MOU, participating states worked together
sions are governmental bodies comprised of state and to develop a complete model rule that each participat-
sometimes federal representatives, often with regula- ing state is directed to propose under state law, either
tory or policy development responsibilities. Prominent as new legislation or through administrative rulemaking,
examples include the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the which includes a provision for a state-specific emissions
Appalachian Regional Commission and the Delaware River cap and requires generators to acquire permits from any
Basin Commission. A commission can be a formal agency participating state to emit carbon dioxide in amounts no
or body with decision-making authority, or an appointed greater than the cap through periodic region-wide auc-
group with a mandate to research or investigate a topic, tions. Each participating state implemented its own ver-
make recommendations to policymakers, or oversee an sion of the model rule, and RGGI started its first trading
area of endeavor. Some commissions receive federal dol- period in 2009.
lars, often matched by state and private sector resources.
All auctions and other regional aspects of the program
Congress also creates interstate entities called authorities are administered and facilitated by a third-party nonprofit
that administer infrastructure, ports and transportation organization called RGGI, Inc. The proceeds of auctions,
functions affecting more than one state. The Tennessee which total more than $1 billion to date, are allocated to
Valley Authority and the Port Authority of New York participating states for consumer benefits, energy effi-
and New Jersey fall within this category. In many cases, ciency, renewable energy development, or other fiscal
interstate commissions and authorities are created by or priorities as the states see fit.12 Independent analysis of
charged with implementing an interstate compact. 10
RGGI shows that the program has yielded substantial net
economic and environmental benefits for consumers and
the regional economy as a whole and is succeeding in
M E M O R A N DA O F U N D E R S TA N D I N G
reducing demand for fossil fuels.13 Although RGGI’s devel-
As an alternative to more formal compacts, states have opment required substantial support from the states and
executed cooperative initiatives through more informal private foundations, the auction process now generates
agreements such as memoranda of understanding (MOU). fees that support the technical needs of RGGI, Inc., as well
MOUs are typically executed by governors or executive as dedicated state agency participation in the ongoing
branch agencies, often without the direct involvement of regional dialogue on program effectiveness and design.
state legislatures. Although MOUs are styled as voluntary, The economic benefits associated with RGGI, especially
nonbinding commitments, participating states often agree the new revenue stream for energy efficiency, were inte-
to evaluate and pursue specific policies, to pool financial gral to the program’s development and to building energy
and technical resources, and to follow defined procedures and business sector constituencies for state-by-state
for decision-making, dispute resolution and stakeholder adoption of legislation or rules.
involvement. Because MOUs are less formal and easier to
adopt than interstate compacts, for example, states com- RGGI offers several potential lessons for regional food
monly use MOUs or similarly informal documents to coor- policy coordination. Despite some opposition from utili-
dinate regional decision-making and even to implement ties, the development of RGGI required genuine collabora-
joint regulatory programs. tion between governmental, industry and public-interest
stakeholders. Likewise, a robust MOU approach neces-
Example: Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative sitates decisions made by full consensus of the partici-
Among the most robust examples of an interstate MOU, pating states, which imparts significant legitimacy and
the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a mar- momentum to program implementation. Even so, RGGI,
ket-based cap-and-trade program to combat climate an inherently narrow program intended to address a single
change by limiting the carbon dioxide emissions of large environmental problem, likely represents the outer limit of
power generators in 10 Northeastern states.11 The RGGI the MOU approach to interstate policymaking, given the
agreement was developed between 2003 and 2005 in economic significance of the program and its direct regu-
coordination with participating states and a broad coali- latory mandates.14
tion of energy sector and environmental stakeholders.
New England Food Policy : Frameworks for Regional Food System Coordination · 125
Example: Transportation and Climate Initiative but not necessarily identical ways, in more states, possibly
MOUs also can serve to study shared policy problems and encompassing a discrete region. In some cases, national
catalyze regional collaboration and dialogue. or regional organizations publish model regulations or
programs that are then disseminated for adoption by mul-
In June 2010, the heads of environmental, energy and tiple states.
transportation agencies from 11 Mid-Atlantic and Northeast
states and the District of Columbia issued a joint decla- For instance, in response to slow federal promulgation of
ration of intent, establishing the so-called Transportation regulatory measures to reduce mercury pollution, state
and Climate Initiative (TCI).15 The goal of this initiative is to laws and regulations in the Northeast now regulate mer-
foster regional collaboration around transportation policy cury and toxic air pollution more stringently than the
and clean energy technology solutions that would reduce federal law does, essentially creating a regional regula-
the carbon emissions of the transportation sector. Housed tory policy.18 This policy emerged through both a regional
at Georgetown University’s Climate Center, TCI receives task force, initiated by the New England Governors’
most of its operating funds from the U.S. Department of Conference in the 1990s, but also through distinctive state
Energy and private foundations. law changes and rulemaking.
The Transportation and Climate Initiative focuses on sev- The restructuring of the New England electric industry
eral core work areas, including the launch of the Northeast is a prominent example of complementary and inde-
Electric Vehicle Network to expedite deployment of elec- pendent state law changes that coalesced into a trans-
tric vehicles and charging infrastructure; promoting trans- formed regional market. These legal changes forced most
portation policies that advance sustainable communities; New England utilities to leave the electric generation
adopting information and communication technologies business and opened the market to competition from
that increase transit use and decrease traffic congestion; nonincumbent power plant operators and other suppli-
and improving the efficiency of freight movement.16 TCI’s ers. Restructuring laws resulted in the development of a
sustainable communities work is documented in a sepa- regional wholesale market for electricity administered by
rate agreement.17 a private, nonprofit corporation, ISO New England, Inc.,
which is empowered by federal law and tariffs to act as
While the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a regu- the operator of the region’s electric transmission system
latory MOU, the Transportation and Climate Initiative and the wholesale power market.
approach to interstate collaboration might be categorized
as an advisory MOU. Its function is to facilitate research, In another form of regulatory cooperation, states often
information sharing, dialogue and policy analysis on engage in reciprocal licensing or regulatory programs,
key transportation and climate issues with the imprima- where actions in one state are recognized in other states.
turs and support of the sponsoring agencies. With TCI’s This is common in education, professional and other ser-
external funding, it is undertaking work on issues that vices, and criminal law contexts. In the agri-food sector,
many resource-strapped state agencies are interested several New England states have in the past operated
in addressing but cannot pursue given personnel and pesticide-applicator licensing programs under reciprocity
budget constraints. As a result, TCI’s work may result in agreements, which are no longer in effect.
stronger regional policies in the long run, although its
projects have not yet translated into meaningful state- Example: Renewable Portfolio Standards
level policy changes. A set of complementary state policies in the energy
sector has drawn interest from food system stakeholders
as a potential model for increasing food production in the
R E G U L AT O R Y H A R M O N I Z AT I O N
region. Renewable portfolio standard (RPS) laws require
AND RECIPROCITY
electric utilities to purchase an increasing percentage of
States may also pursue regionally focused solutions with-
their energy supply from renewable sources of power,
out a single regional governance structure or body such
such as wind, solar, biomass and small-scale hydropower.
as those described above. There are many examples of
Although each New England state has its own RPS pro-
market-based and regulatory programs that begin within
gram,19 the programs establish set percentages of differ-
a couple of states and are ultimately adopted, in similar
ent types of renewable supply, differentiating between
126
newly developed and preexisting facilities and between Example: Northeastern Association of State Departments
fuel sources. Certified renewable energy facilities, which of Agriculture
can be located anywhere in New England or adjacent The Northeastern Association of State Departments of
power grids, earn renewable energy credits for each unit Agriculture (NEASDA) is the regional chapter of the
of power they generate. National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
(NASDA), an organization that represents state depart-
Generally, utilities satisfy their renewable portfolio stan- ments of agriculture “in the development, implementation,
dard obligations by purchasing credits from certified and communication of sound public policy and programs
renewable energy sources or by making payments to a which support and promote the American agricultural
state renewable energy fund. By creating new markets industry, while protecting consumers and the environ-
and revenue streams for the emerging renewable energy ment.”21 Like the national association, NEASDA adopts
industry, renewable portfolio standard laws have been joint policy statements on a range of agricultural issues
moderately successful at encouraging investment in and and provides a platform for lobbying Congress and federal
strengthening the economics of renewable energy in New agencies on matters of concern to the agricultural sector.
England. With renewable energy facilities able to sell The northeastern association, which includes the New
credits to utilities throughout New England and beyond, England states, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and
renewable energy credit markets are both state-based Delaware, meets at least twice a year and has no formal
and regional. staff; its work is conducted by the respective agency
heads from each state department of agriculture and its
staff, with support from the national staff in Washington,
I N T E R G OV E R N M E N TA L C O U N C I L S
D.C. In addition to identifying common policy issues of
State governments frequently form collaborative, formal regional importance, NEASDA allows for informal coordi-
relationships, often without direct legal or regulatory nation and information sharing among the region’s state
mandates. These relationships are intended to be perma- agriculture agency heads and staff.
nent and ongoing, with varying structures and processes
for accomplishing goals and tasks. Example: New England States Animal Agriculture
Security Alliance
Example: Coalition of Northeastern Governors Another of the New England governors’ achievements
The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) brings to date was forming the New England States Animal
together the governors of the six New England states Agriculture Security Alliance (NESAASA). Precedents
and New York for periodic meetings, information-shar- in other parts of the country include the Multi-State
ing and joint statements of policy.20 In recent years, this Partnership for Security in Agriculture and the Southern
coalition — as well as the former New England Governors’ Agriculture and Animal Disaster Response Alliance. All six
Conference, which had a similar structure and goals, and New England governors signed the NESAASA charter in
was folded into CONEG in 2012 — has promoted policies July 2010.
addressing shared economic, environmental and social
issues that reflect CONEG’s agenda. Through the Coalition The chartered goal of NESAASA is the following:
of Northeastern Governors, the state executive branches
• To support and develop regional NIMS-compliant stan-
establish joint visions, priorities and goals. They also
dards, processes, and capacity through collaborative
create joint agreements to tackle common problems and
planning, preparedness, mitigation, response, and
coordinate policy efforts.
recovery efforts that help to ensure the safety, health
and security of the regional food and animal and
A nonprofit organization serves as the staff arm of the coa-
animal agriculture sector infrastructure and economy.
lition. Where the governors identify national or regional
NESAASA seeks to enhance New England regional
issues warranting joint focus, CONEG facilitates informa-
animal and animal agriculture emergency prepared-
tion exchange, tracks related developments within the
ness and response to all hazards including chemical,
region and nationally and conducts policy assessments
biological, radiological and nuclear incidents and nat-
and studies to help inform and coordinate state actions.
ural disasters.22
New England Food Policy : Frameworks for Regional Food System Coordination · 127
With the support of the Area Office of the USDA Animal and • Strengthening the profitability and sustainability of
Plant Health Inspection Service-Veterinary Services, the six the region’s dairy farming industry;
state veterinarians who comprise NESAASA developed the
• Fostering long-term farm profitability and sustainabil-
Cooperative Agreement and Work Plan for this project.
ity; and
128
Example: Food Solutions New England Safety Consortium, a network of food safety and nutri-
Established in 2006, Food Solutions New England (FSNE) tion specialists and educators, as well as food science
is a “regional food systems learning-action network” dedi- faculty representing the six New England land-grant uni-
cated to “transforming the New England food system into versities. The food safety consortium creates educational
a resilient driver of healthy food, sustainable farming and programs and online resources related to food safety. The
fishing, food system equity and thriving communities.” six New England extension programs also sponsor the
FSNE is supported by the University of New Hampshire’s annual New England Vegetable and Fruit Conference, a
Sustainability Institute with assistance from private foun- three-day winter meeting to promote collaboration and
dations. FSNE is organized around four activities: the New resource-sharing among the extension programs and the
England Food Vision; New England state food system region’s vegetable and fruit growers.28
planning; annual regional Food Summits; and network
development and communications. The New England
O T H E R I N I T I AT I V E S
Food Vision calls for building the capacity for the region
to produce at least 50 percent of its food needs by 2060. Numerous other examples of multistate food system initia-
The Vision is the work of a writing team of academic tives demonstrate the potential for impact. Recent exam-
researchers and practitioners. It reflects three years of ples include Farm to Institution New England (funded by
review and input from diverse stakeholders and will con- the John Merck Fund and others); Northeast Ag Works!
tinue as a living document. FSNE-hosted annual regional (funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation); Enhancing
summits and network development events contribute to Food Security in the Northeast with Regional Food
shared learning, mutual awareness and dialogue across Systems (funded by the USDA’s Agriculture and Food
the diverse approaches to state food planning underway Research Initiative); the Land Access Project (funded by
in the six New England states. FSNE is committed to pro- the USDA’s Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development
moting the design and facilitation of a regional network to Program); and the New England Food System Policy
advance the aspirations of the New England Food Vision Project of which this report is a part (supported by the
The initial purpose of the program was to support the involve multiple states. Food system planning and policy
sale of New England-grown produce through supermar- efforts within states are potential contributing platforms
ket channels. The program was subsequently opened to for regional food system coordination or collaboration.
all New England food and agricultural products. Harvest These state-based efforts take diverse forms, including
New England fosters collaborative problem-solving at state food charters, plans and policy councils. In some
the regional level and sponsors a biennial regional con- cases, state food policy councils are charged with devel-
ference and trade show. The program also coordinates oping or implementing state plans, among other respon-
workshops and meetings focused on regional issues of sibilities or functions. In other cases, food system planning
concern to farmers, such as regulations, food safety and is being conducted outside of state government. Each of
agritourism.26 the six New England states has embarked on food plan-
ning efforts.29
work of the six New England states’ cooperative exten- undertaken on a multistate or regional scale. A notable
sion systems. Its goals are to foster multistate collabo- exception is the plan prepared by the Delaware Valley
ration and to strive for more effective and efficient use Regional Planning Commission. Greater Philadelphia’s
of the extension systems’ limited resources.27 One of Food System Plan covers parts of Pennsylvania and New
its recent projects is the New England Extension Food Jersey. Yet those working to develop state-based food
New England Food Policy : Frameworks for Regional Food System Coordination · 129
policy and planning structures are increasingly recog- 200 organizations — including work groups, task forces
nizing that success depends in part on the larger food and cross-cutting teams — that is coordinated by a steer-
system. From this perspective, strong state food char- ing committee and facilitated by the Vermont Sustainable
ters and plans are potentially significant influences on Jobs Fund, Farm to Plate is focused on achieving the
regional food system planning coordination, and vice plan’s 25 goals, which touch on all sectors of Vermont’s
versa. Similarly, state food policy councils or similar plan- food system.35 A central product is the newly launched
ning entities can be powerful participants in any regional online Vermont Food Atlas, a comprehensive repository of
efforts or institutions. As an example, the New England food and agriculture resources in the state and an online
Food Vision 2060, referenced above, assumes regional destination to monitor the state’s progress in achieving
collaboration among the six states. It recognizes New the plan’s goals.36
England has diverse population and production capacity
as well as sea-based resources. Ideally, regional planning
FOOD POLICY COUNCILS
will inform state plans, and state food planning will influ-
ence regional efforts. A food policy council brings together stakeholders from
across the food system to engage in food system plan-
ning efforts, research, education and, most significantly,
S TAT E F O O D C H A R T E R S A N D P L A N S
food system policy development. Many food policy coun-
The food charters and food plans described here share a cils operate at the municipal level. They work to develop
common purpose. A food plan is largely synonymous with legislative, regulatory and nongovernmental solutions
a food charter but may be more detailed and may imply or to strengthen state or local food systems, promote eco-
include more specific actions. In most cases, one or more nomic development in the food system and advance envi-
organizations or entities are responsible for the charter or ronmental stewardship and social justice. Often initiated
plan and may also sponsor events, research, a website or by government through legislation or executive orders,
publications. statewide food policy councils may have an official man-
date and obligations, as well as government members and
Typically developed through the joint effort of diverse formal relationships with administrative agencies and leg-
food system stakeholders concerned with a specific state, islative bodies. Other food policy councils, especially at
geographic area or community, a food charter consists of the county or local level, are independent of government
a declaration of common visions, values and principles but may include representatives from governmental enti-
that should guide the jurisdiction’s food policy. It does ties.37 Several are coordinated by a city employee.
not have regulatory weight or the force of law. In recent
years, food charters have been adopted in Michigan, Iowa, According to the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic:
Oregon, West Virginia, the city of Los Angeles, the region A food policy council provides a unique forum for diverse
around Durham, N.C., and in Canada.30 In an unusual exam- stakeholders to address the common concerns about
ple of a food charter applicable to more than one state, food policies that arise in their city, county, or state,
organizations and institutions in Wisconsin and Minnesota including topics such as food security, farm policy, food
together adopted a food charter for the food system of regulations, environmental impacts, health, and nutri-
15 counties along the western shore of Lake Superior.31 tion. Stakeholders include a range of people invested in
Stakeholders in Rhode Island recently developed a farm- the food system, such as farmers, city and state officials,
er-driven statewide strategic plan to strengthen and non-profit organizations, chefs, food distributors, food
diversify the state’s agriculture sector.32 justice advocates, educators, health professionals, and
concerned citizens. With the lack of government agencies
Example: Vermont Farm to Plate (at any level) devoted to the sole task of regulating and
Vermont’s 2010 Farm to Plate plan is a particularly improving food policy, food policy councils have emerged
robust 10-year statewide strategic food system plan. It as innovative and much-needed mechanisms to identify
was developed by the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund and advocate for food system change.38
and the Vermont Sustainable Agriculture Council, a food
policy advisory entity created in 1995.33 In part, Farm to As of 2012, there were 193 state and local food policy coun-
Plate is intended to guide and support Vermont’s Farm to cils around the country, nearly twice as many as there were
Plate Investment Program, which the Vermont legislature in 2010.39 There are no multi-state food policy councils.
enacted in 2009. 34
A self-governing network of more than
130
Example: Connecticut Food Policy Council and consensus reflected in existing initiatives to achieve
Created by the Connecticut legislature in 1997, the new goals. For instance, an interstate compact may not be
Connecticut Food Policy Council consists of six stake- needed to develop a multistate farm and food marketing
holders from various sectors of the food system that are campaign. A task force may not be sufficient to address
nominated by elected officials.40 By statute, the coun- issues such as regional milk pricing or interstate harmoniz-
cil is charged with the development, coordination and ing of state meat inspection programs, though it may be
implementation of a food system policy, as well as active an appropriate first step. Some, but not all, models require
participation in legislative and regulatory policy activi- a substantial investment of time, energy and resources.
ties affecting the food system.41 Since its enactment the
council has been at the center of several important food In the spirit of furthering dialogue to address regional
system projects across the state. 42
food system issues, the following discussion describes
one idea for an overarching regional approach. In addi-
Other entities and programs with regional focus deserve tion, we present several specific policy and institutional
mention, for example the Northeast-Midwest Institute, and areas for additional regional collaboration that were sug-
various regional rural and urban policy institutes. Federal gested by stakeholders engaged as part of this research.
agencies have regional divisions, USDA’s Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education Program in the
R E G I O N A L FO O D SYST E M P L A N N I N G E N T I T Y
Northeast and EPA Region I, for example. There are also
regional chapters of NGO associations and professional A regional entity comprising representation from New
organizations such as the Northeast Regional Anti-Hunger England states could set an agenda for states to work
Network, which holds regular conferences. together on food system issues. It could build regional
consensus around a sustainable food system vision such
as, for example, the New England Food Vision 2060. The
Action initial mandate of the entity would be to develop a process
for multistate cooperation. It could be organized using
one of the models discussed above, such as a regional
As the above catalogue reveals, there are several mecha-
food policy council or an ad hoc task force. The body
nisms for states to work together toward common goals.
could lead the development and implementation of a stra-
There is no one best model for interstate cooperation. The
tegic regional plan to achieve jointly identified goals. Such
most appropriate model depends entirely on the prob-
an entity could be initiated by formal government action
lem or goal that stakeholders wish to address. The chal-
or as an evolution or outgrowth of the Vision and efforts
lenge — and opportunity — is to match the model to the
of the New England Farm and Food Security Initiative or
problem. This requires a solid analysis of the problem and
Food Solutions New England.
the regional strategies, if any, that best address it. It also
requires strong network connections and relationships
The group could be charged with producing a strategy
that promote trust and collaborative action.
similar to the charter or food plan models described above,
or developing an MOU to facilitate shared and coopera-
Indeed, regional cooperation is fraught with challenges.
tive actions. With a clearly defined mission or mandate,
These include existing state-focused mandates, cultural
the entity would provide a forum for identification of
parochialism, bureaucratic constraints, real and perceived
market-based and regulatory solutions and for regional
competition, and inadequate resources. The takeaway is
coordination of public policies to seize those opportuni-
that there is a choice of devices to bring states together to
ties. If the initiative aimed at identifiable and immediate
solve problems and achieve shared goals. This is far more
economic benefits for farmers, supply chain actors and
likely to happen in networks with shared values and visions.
citizens, while promoting food equity, a regional initiative to
strengthen food systems could generate a high level of par-
More prescriptive approaches are only possible with
ticipating state commitment and stakeholder enthusiasm.
deep political will among diverse stakeholders to bring
the chosen model to fruition and committed resources
As an advisory institution, a regional body would need
to sustain it for whatever time is needed. With other
strong, broad-based support from governmental, indus-
approaches, it may be sufficient to rely on voluntary coor-
try and public stakeholders as well as adequate financial
dination and collaboration or to build on the momentum
New England Food Policy : Frameworks for Regional Food System Coordination · 131
resources and staff support to facilitate its work. Achieving among the states’ cooperative extension programs, above
meaningful policy changes likely will require an entity and beyond the New England Extension Consortium.46
with some institutional underpinning and longevity. The
daunting task of translating visions and plans into state Food System Workforce Coordination: Stakeholders
legislation and rulemakings that garner political support addressing fair labor and workforce development in the
would be the principal challenge for this group. In a more food system suggested a regional repository of model
modest approach, the entity could be charged with estab- state policies and legislation, coordination of university
lishing an inclusive process to derive a shared set of food and other training programs, and educational and licens-
system principles and guidelines for the multistate region. ing reciprocity agreements among the New England
states.47
As part of any regional planning process, a regional food
planning body might focus on evaluating the appropriate Institutional Procurement: Stakeholders pointed to
regional tools and methods, such as those discussed in regional branding of food products as a strategy that
this report, for addressing specific food policy or insti- could expand opportunities for institutional procurement
tutional challenges where stakeholders identify a need of New England-grown foods.48
for greater regional coordination. It is possible that the
functions of a regional food-system-planning group could Meat Processing: Stakeholders discussed meat process-
be split among several networks or institutions, although ing and related federal and state regulatory requirements
disaggregation could diminish the effort’s overall impact. as a potential area for regional agreements, regulatory
harmonization and better coordination to improve market
opportunities and slaughterhouse capacity.49
A R E A S F O R G R E AT E R R E G I O N A L C O O R D I -
N AT I O N A N D C O L L A B O R AT I O N
Federal Programs and Funding: A potential focus of
Interviews with food system stakeholders during the regional coordination is the use of federal programs and
first half of 2013, various breakout discussions at the funds, including those for ecosystem services, so that
Food Solutions New England 2013 Food Summit, and underused resources could be shifted to other states in
the research informing this report identified a number of the region where demand and program use are higher.50
policy and institutional areas as potentially promising for Likewise, in those cases where a large number of New
greater regional coordination.43 These areas merit addi- England farms fail to qualify for certain federal programs
tional exploration as future focuses of regional initiatives, or funding, the states could explore regionally oriented
potentially including one or more of the regional frame- approaches and consider pooling financial resources to
works identified in this section. provide similar grants and incentives to a broader group
of New England farms.
Farm Bill: A frequent refrain of stakeholders is the need to
strengthen New England’s voice in establishing and imple- Assessment of Regional Branding: Stakeholders noted
menting the provisions of the federal farm bill through that the proper role of regional branding efforts is an
regionally based coordination and advocacy.44 important and evolving issue, suggesting that such
efforts may require additional focus, clearer standards
Federal Food Safety Modernization Act: Implementation and ongoing monitoring and assessment to ensure that
of the new requirements of the federal Food Safety these efforts provide value and contribute to successful
Modernization Act is a clear potential focus for regional marketing.51
coordination, information-sharing and advocacy at the
federal level for needed regulatory changes, as well Soil Contamination Issues: Given divergent state reg-
as evaluation of the impacts of FSMA implementation ulatory approaches, urban agriculture efforts through-
across states.45 out New England could benefit from a common set of
regional best practices for due diligence, environmental
Cooperative Extension Programs: Stakeholders iden- liability protection and soil remediation where urban land
tified a need for further efforts to promote regional or brownfields are being converted to agricultural uses.
resource-sharing, coordination and communication
132
Regulatory Harmonization, Reciprocity and Cross-
Pollination: There appear to be a number of promising
areas where state laws and regulations could be better
harmonized to facilitate regional markets, such as food
safety and processing, and where best practices should
be shared among states, including current-use taxation,
access to state lands for farming, and water resources
management.
New England Food Policy : Frameworks for Regional Food System Coordination · 133
ENDNOTES
1
See, e.g., Kate Clancy & Kathryn Ruhf, Is Local Enough? Some Arguments for Regional Food Systems, Choices Mag, 1st
quarter 2010, http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/pdf/article_114.pdf; Margaret Sova McCabe & Joanne Burke, The
New England Food System in 2060: Envisioning Tomorrow’s Policy Through Today’s Assessments, 65 Maine L. Rev. 549,
556–60 (2013). See also the discussion below of stakeholder suggestions of areas for improved regional collaboration.
2
Interview with Brian Dabson (Mar. 14, 2013).
3
U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 3 (“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact
with another State.”). The Supreme Court has held that only compacts that affect the balance of state and federal power
or otherwise intrude into areas of federal supremacy require Congressional consent. See, e.g., U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate
Tax Comm’n, 434 U.S. 452, 471 (1978).
4
The Council of State Governments administers NCIC as a clearinghouse for information and technical assistance for
states considering and developing interstate compacts. NCIC has published resource guides addressing the legal aspects
of, and best practices for, compact development. See, e.g., Best Practices for Compact Development, Nat’l Ctr. for Inter-
state Compacts (May 2011), http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/system/files/Compact_Development_0.pdf.
5
Compacts Fact Sheet, Nat’l Ctr. for Interstate Compacts,
http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/ncic/FactSheet.pdf (last visited Nov. 13, 2013).
6
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Compact, Pub. L. No. 77-539, 56 Stat. 267 (1942). See 16 U.S.C. § 5102(3).
7
Bay State-Ocean State Compact, Council of State Govt’s,
http://apps.csg.org/ncic/PDF/Bay%20State-Ocean%20State%20Compact.pdf (last visited Nov. 13, 2013).
8
Jasper Womach, Agriculture: A Glossary of Terms, Programs, and Laws CRS-186, Cong. Research Serv. No 97-905,
(2005), available at http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/05jun/97-905.pdf; see also N.Y. State Dairy Foods, Inc. v. North-
east Dairy Compact Comm’n, 198 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (upholding compact against constitutional challenges); cf. West Lynn
Creamery v. Healy, 512 U.S. 86 (1994) (striking down state milk pricing order).
9
E.g., Interview with Lorraine Merrill, Commissioner, N.H. Dep’t of Agric., Markets & Food (Feb. 18, 2013); Interview with
Rob Johnson, N.H. Farm Bureau (Feb. 20, 2013); New England Food Summit, Processing, Slaughter, Aggregation & Distri-
bution Breakout Session (Jun. 13, 2013); Womach, supra note 8, at CRS-240. A similar compact, the Southern Dairy Com-
pact, failed to gain traction. Enacted by 13 Southern states between 1997 and 2001, the compact has not been approved
by Congress.
10
This is especially common in the stewardship of common environmental and natural resources. See An Overview of the
Structure and Governance of Environment and Natural Resource Compacts 4, U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office GAO-07-
0519 (2007), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07519.pdf.
11
See Memorandum of Understanding, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative,
http://www.rggi.org/docs/mou_final_12_20_05.pdf, (last updated Dec. 12, 2005).
12
Auction Results, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative,
http://www.rggi.org/market/co2_auctions/results (last visited Nov. 13, 2013).
13
Paul J. Hibbard et al., The Economic Impacts of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative on Ten Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic States, (Nov. 15, 2011),
http://www.analysisgroup.com/uploadedFiles/Publishing/Articles/Economic_Impact_RGGI_Report.pdf.
14
Some commentators have questioned RGGI’s constitutional validity under the Compact and Commerce Clauses. See,
e.g., Steven Ferrey, Goblets of Fire: Potential Constitutional Impediments to the Regulation of Global Warming, 35 Ecology
L.Q. 835, 883, 900-2 (2008).
15
Transportation and Climate Initiative of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States Declaration of Intent, Georgetown
Climate Center, http://www.georgetownclimate.org/sites/default/files/TCI-declaration.pdf (last visited Nov. 13, 2013).
16
Transportation and Climate Initiative of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States: Building the Clean Energy Economy
and Reducing Greenhouse Gas and Emissions in the Northeast, Georgetown Climate Ctr.,
http://www.georgetownclimate.org/sites/default/files/TCI%20brochure.pdf, (last visited Nov. 13, 2013).
17
TCI Jurisdictions Move Forward With Sustainable Communities Activities, Georgetown Climate Ctr., (June 8, 2011),
http://www.georgetownclimate.org/tci-jurisdictions-move-forward-with-sustainable-communities-activities.
18
Northeast States Succeed in Reducing Mercury in the Environment, New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Comm’n, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Mgmt., and Northeast Waste Mgmt. Officials’ Ass’n, (Sept. 2007),
http://www.nescaum.org/documents/northeast-states-succeed-in-reducing-mercury-in-the-environment/final-
mercury-success-story-summary.pdf/.
19
Unlike the other New England states’ RPS laws, Vermont’s program establishes portfolio goals to incentivize new
renewable development in the state but is not legally binding on utilities. See Vermont’s Renewable Energy Programs:
Speed Program, VermontSPEED, http://vermontspeed.com/ (last visited Nov. 13, 2013).
20
About CONEG, Coal. of Northeastern Governors, http://www.coneg.org/about/ (last updated Aug. 29, 2012).
134
21
Nat’l Ass’n of State Dep’t of Agric., http://www.nasda.org/About.aspx (last visited Nov. 13, 2013).
22
New England States Animal Agricultural Security Alliance, Charter, 1 (July 21, 2010),
http://newenglandsmsproject.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/7/3/12737832/nesaasa_charter_agreement_signed_7-21-10.pdf.
23
Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Land Conservation, New England Governors’ Conference (Sept. 2009),
http://action.farmland.org/site/DocServer/NEGC_CLC_Report_9.09.pdf?docID=2201.
24
Id.
25
Northeast Sustainable Agric. Working Grp., http://www.nefood.org/page/nesawg (last visited Nov. 13, 2013).
26
Interview with Mary Jordan, Harvest New England (July 8, 2013).
27
About the New England Food Safety Extension Consortium, New England Food Entrepreneurs,
http://extension.unh.edu/nefe/about.html (last visited Nov. 13, 2013).
28
About the Conference, New England Vegetable and Fruit Conference 2013,
http://www.newenglandvfc.org/about_the_conference.html (last visited Nov. 13, 2013).
29
McCabe & Burke, supra note 1, at 560-70.
30
E.g., Michigan Good Food Charter, Michigan Good Food (June 2010), http://www.michiganfood.org/assets/goodfood/
docs/MI%20Good%20Food%20Charter%20Final.pdf; Los Angeles Food Policy Council Objectives, Los Angeles Good Food,
http://goodfoodla.org/objectives/good-food-for-all-goals/ (last visited Nov. 13, 2013).
31
Lake Superior Good Food Charter, Lake Superior Good Food Network,
http://www.goodfoodnetwork.org/goodfoodcharter.html (last visited Nov. 13, 2013).
32
A Vision for Rhode Island Agriculture – Five-Year Strategic Plan, R. I. Agric. Partnership, (May 2011),
http://students.cs.uri.edu/~rhodyag/docs/RI_agriculture_5yr_strategicplan.pdf.
33
Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, Vt. Sustainable Jobs Fund [hereinafter Vt. Sustainable Jobs Fund], http://www.vsjf.org/
project-details/5/farm-to-plate-initiative (last visited Nov. 13, 2013); Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, Vt. Food System Atlas,
http://www.vtfoodatlas.com/plan/ (last visited Nov. 13, 2013).
34
Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, supra note 33.
35
Farm to Plate Investment Program, Vt. Food System Atlas,
http://www.vtfoodatlas.com/uploads/F2P%20Annual%20Report_January%202013.pdf (last visited Nov. 13, 2013).
36
Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, supra note 33.
37
Alethea Harper et al. Food Policy Councils: Lessons Learned, Inst. for Food & Dev. Policy,
http://www.foodfirst.org/en/foodpolicycouncils-lessons (last updated Dec. 16, 2009).
38
Good Laws, Good Food: Putting State Food Policy to Work for our Communities 1, Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic,
(Nov. 2012), http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/foodpolicyinitiative/files/2012/12/FINAL-full-state-toolkit.pdf.
39
Id.
40
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-456.
41
Id.
42
McCabe & Burke, supra note 1, at 563–64.
43
2013 Summit, Food Solutions New England http://www.foodsolutionsne.org/2013-summit (last visited Nov. 13, 2013).
44
E.g., Interview with Emily Broad Lieb, Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic (May 17, 2013).
45
Id.; see also “What Else is Needed” in the Food Safety, Processing, Aggregation, and Distribution section of this report.
46
New England Food Summit, Food Production Policy Breakout Session (Jun. 13, 2013).
47
New England Food Summit, Labor and Workforce Development Breakout Session (Jun. 13, 2013).
48
New England Food Summit, Growing Market Demand Breakout Session (Jun. 13, 2013).
49
New England Food Summit, Processing, Slaughter, Aggregation & Distribution Breakout Session (Jun. 13, 2013).
50
Interview with Emily Broad Lieb, Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic (May 17, 2013).
51
E.g., Interview with Phil Korman, Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (July 11, 2013); interview with
Michael Botelho, Commonwealth Quality Program Coordinator, Mass. Dep’t of Agric. Resources (July 9, 2013);
interview with Mary Jordan, Harvest New England (July 8, 2013).
New England Food Policy : Frameworks for Regional Food System Coordination · 135
136
Conclusion
T
his report presents policy research, analysis and suggestions related to five key areas of
New England’s food system. It is the result of detailed investigation, thoughtful interviews and
broad review by dozens of stakeholders. It provides a solid and ambitious platform for groups
and agencies to pursue policy actions at the state and federal levels. In addition, the report calls for
creative strategies for our six states to work together toward regional food system solutions.
Following are several highlights from each of the report sections. Considered together, these high-
lights suggest that the scope of our challenge is broad, as are the opportunities for positive change.
• Access to affordable farmland is a significant barrier to expanded food production in New England.
Improving land access will require new policy tools, including tax policy changes to promote the
sale or lease of land to farmers.
• Stopping the loss of productive farmland will require additional investments in farmland protec-
tion, as well as new protection strategies, strengthened farmland mitigation policies and more
aggressive state incentives for urban infill development.
• Less restrictive or ambiguous local zoning ordinances are needed to encourage urban agriculture.
FOOD PRODUCTION
• Interviewees were united in concern about farm labor availability, which is a key impediment to
increasing regional food production. Federal immigration reform legislation passed in the Senate
in 2013 would effectively address this concern, creating an agricultural guest-worker program
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for both seasonal and year-round employees.
• Growing production risks associated with climate change will require increased state and federal
investments in agricultural research and extension, and better risk management strategies.
• Public investments in farm and food business development appear to be creating new jobs and
economic opportunities in agriculture; improved impact analysis would help make the case for
sustained state and federal funding for these programs.
• For produce, advocate for changes to the Food Safety Modernization Act rules so that the reg-
ulations address food safety concerns, while minimizing the negative effects on farmers, food
producers and the environment.
• For dairy farms, promote business planning and provide grants to develop additional on- and off-
farm processing capacity.
• For meat and poultry, study methods of aggregation and distribution that can meet the region’s
growing demand for local meat and poultry products.
• For seafood, expand efforts to educate consumers about other species of locally sourced fish
available for consumption, and continue policy efforts to market sustainably harvested fish.
MARKETS
• While the demand curve for locally and regionally grown foods continues to trend up, several
interviewees stressed the need for research to better understand current levels of local and
regional food consumption, and the potential for increased consumption, focusing especially on
price points for large retail and institutional markets.
• Strengthened state procurement policies could drive additional demand for New England-
sourced foods at state universities and community colleges, prisons and government buildings.
Two-tiered state procurement policies, preferring foods sourced within the state and from across
New England, would recognize the imbalance in supply and demand in many New England states
and the economic value to the region in increasing regional demand.
• Helping producers comply with the Food Safety Modernization Act and other food safety stan-
dards required by retail and institutional buyers will be essential in order to maintain and increase
production to meet demand.
WASTE STREAMS
• Identify existing organics infrastructure such as on-farm and commercial composting operations,
as well as anaerobic digesters.
• Interviewees encouraged statewide incentives for local action, such as increased tipping fees,
while providing funds for food scrap pickup.
• Enact statewide phased bans on landfilling food scraps and other organics.
138
FRAMEWORKS FOR REGIONAL FOOD SYSTEM COORDINATION
• Multistate approaches to improve the New England food system are essential. Build on existing
intergovernmental efforts, regional food system networks and initiatives, and state or local food
charters and policy councils.
• It makes sense to explore creating a multistate food system planning entity to chart a course for
greater regional coordination and collaboration.
• There could be substantial advantages to harmonizing state programs and seeking regulatory
reciprocity where feasible, such as in meat processing, institutional purchasing, and labor and
workforce development.
New England Food Policy: Building a Sustainable Food System constitutes an agenda for action.
It is intended to guide the collaborating authors in partnership with food system leaders and stake-
holders in each New England state to hone, support and implement public policies and programs
that could have the most significant impact toward strengthening and regionalizing our food system.
Through convenings, strategy sessions, webinar trainings and support from food policy and organiz-
ing consultants, advocates at all levels will be able to work with others on the policy issues that are
strategic priorities for them.
In addition to the specific efforts supported by this project, groups and agencies throughout New
England can use this report to inspire, inform and direct their own, as well as collective, action to pro-
mote more supportive public policies. The policy options, research and analysis recommendations,
and best practices listed here will lead to many more that will move us toward a more sustainable,
secure and just food system for New England.
This Appendix includes additional information that was collected during research undertaken for
New England Food Policy: Building a Sustainable Food System. The intention is for this to serve as
an accompaniment to the main text; the information herein is not a complete inventory of federal
and state policies relevant to New England food and agriculture. In some cases, the information in
the Appendix is referenced in the report, but in many cases it is not. The Appendix does not include
information for all sections of the report.
FOOD PRODUCTION
MARKETS
WASTE STREAMS
140
APPENDIX A: CURRENT USE PROPERTY TAX VALUATION
R.I.G.L. § 44-5-39
Rhode Island
R.I. Code R. 25-3-21:5
ELIGIBILITY
Size • No minimum is necessary, but the • Five contiguous acres are necessary. • Five contiguous acres are necessary.
applicant must show bona fide agri-
business or farming activity.
Income • No minimum is necessary, but the • The parcel must gross $2,000 • The purpose must be to gross $500
applicant must show bona fide agri- annually. annually, with an additional $5 gross
business or farming activity. per extra acre of enrolled land.
Continuity of Use • No minimum is necessary, but the • The parcel must have met the size • The parcel must have met the size
applicant must show bona fide agri- and income requirements for one of and income requirements for at least
business or farming activity. two, or three of five years preceding two years preceding the application.
the application.
• Enrollment of fallow land is allowed if
the reason for disuse is “soil nutrient
replenishment, crop rotation, soil
conservation purposes, labor and/
or capital investment requirements,
market conditions or various other
reasons that might result in a less
productive use of the land.”
A P P L I C AT I O N
• i. Guidelines for Agricultural Valua-
tion, put out by the Department of
Agriculture and Revenue Services,
suggest a per-acre valuation based
on agricultural activity.
• ii. Adjustment factors allow the as-
sessor to deviate from the prescribed
value, if he or she can substantiate
the deviation.
• iii. Conservation measures qualify as
an adjustment factor.
RETENTION
• Recapture tax penalties decrease ev- • A recapture tax is levied on the origi-
ery year the land has been in current nal landowner.
use assessment.
• A conveyance tax is levied on the
purchasing developer.
• Right of first refusal gives the munici-
pality the option of purchasing land
that has been a part of the state’s
current use valuation program.
142
New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont
• To be eligible, the applicant needs 10 • Five acres are necessary if the land is • A minimum of 25 acres are neces-
acres, which may be aggregated with owned by a farmer. sary.
land used for forestry and “wild-
• No minimum is required if the pri- • No minimum is required if the land
land,” if the parcel meets the income
mary purpose is horticulture and/or is owned by a farmer and is part of
requirements.
agriculture. an overall farm unit OR is used by a
farmer as part of his or her farming
• No minimum is necessary for subsis-
operations.
tence farming.
• No minimum is necessary if the
• No minimum is required if the com-
parcel of up to 25 acres produces a
bination of acreage, crop reduction
gross income of at least $2,000.
and income qualifies the land as a
farm.
• The parcel must gross $2,500 an- • Land qualifying under the five-acres- • No minimum is required if the land
nually. by-farmer parcel size minimum must parcel of up to 25 acres produces a
produce $2,500 annually. gross income of $2,000.
• There is no minimum for land that • Larger parcels must gross $75 per
has a primarily agricultural and/or acre above the 25 acre minimum,
horticultural use OR is a subsistence with the total income not to exceed
farm. $5,000.
• Exceptions may be made in cases
of orchard lands planted with fruit
producing trees, bushes or vines that
are not yet of bearing age.
• The parcel must have met the size • The parcel must have met the size • The parcel must have met the size
and income requirements the year and income requirements in one of and income requirements in one of
prior to the application, and on a two years preceding the application. two, or three of five calendar years
continuing basis. preceding the application.
• If the land is leased, the lease must
have been underwritten for three
years.
• The state gives municipalities the op- • A flat tax penalty of 20 percent of
tion to direct Land Use Change Tax fair market value is charged up to 10
penalties into a conservation fund years after the land is enrolled.
administered by the municipality.
• After 10 years, the penalty is reduced
• Funds can be used to purchase land to 10 percent.
or conservation easements; create
town maps; evaluate wetlands, per-
form inventories of natural resources;
invite guest speakers; and train and
educate citizens.
• The 2013 federal estate tax applies to the amount of an estate that exceeds $5.25 million, and the
tax rate is capped at 35 percent.1
• Normally, estate taxes must be paid within nine months of death. If at least 35 percent of the value
of an estate is a farm, taxes may be paid over an additional 14 years, with interest due after the
fifth year.2
• The exemption was reduced from $3.5 million in 2011: Public Act 11-6.
• The estate tax rate begins at 7.2 percent of the excess over $2 million and increases. The high-
est bracket is for an estate worth at least $10 million; the rate is $748,200 plus 12 percent of the
excess over $10.1 million.
Maine
• The estate tax rate begins at 8 percent of the excess over $2 million and increases. The highest
bracket is for an estate worth more than $8 million; the rate is $540,000 plus 12 percent of the
excess over $8 million.
Massachusetts
• Based on the Internal Revenue Code in effect on Dec. 31, 2000, if an estate consists solely of
property subject to Massachusetts estate taxation, it pays to Massachusetts an amount equal
to the federal credit. For an estate worth more than $1 million, the rate starts at 6.4 percent and
increases to 16 percent for an estate worth $10 million or more.
Rhode Island
• The tax is a sum equal to the maximum credit for state death taxes allowed by 26 U.S.C. § 2011. For
an estate worth more than $1 million, the rate starts at 6.4 percent and increases to 16 percent for
an estate worth $10 million or more. This amount will be adjusted annually by the percentage of
increase in the U.S. Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers.
1
See generally Estate Tax, Internal Revenue Serv., http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/
Estate-Tax (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
2
How Will the Phaseout of Federal Estate Taxes Affect Farmers?, USDA Econ. Research Serv. 2 (Feb. 2002),
http://www.ers.usda.gov/ersDownloadHandler.ashx?file=/media/479563/aib751-02_1_.pdf; see 26 U.S.C. § 6166 (2013).
3
Adjusted taxable gifts are any lifetime gifts in excess of the annual exclusion amounts. A Guide to Estate Taxes, Mass.
Dep’t of Revenue, http://www.mass.gov/dor/individuals/taxpayer-help-and-resources/tax-guides/estate-tax-information/
estate-tax-guide.html (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
144
Vermont
• The tax is a sum equal to the maximum credit for state death taxes allowed by 26 U.S.C. § 2011.
For an estate worth more than $1 million, the rate starts at 6.4 percent and increases to 16 percent
for an estate worth $10 million or more.
• The State Land Use Plan is found in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16a-24 to -35b.
»» The plan sets out six growth management principles, ways to achieve each, and ways to mea-
sure progress and compliance.
»» The plan uses geographic information systems (GIS) mapping to designate growth centers and
conservations areas (see Mapping section, below).
Maine
• The Maine Land Use Planning Commission directly regulates most development in unorganized
territories.4
»» The act establishes a statewide permitting program that regulates development projects larger
than 20 acres, and some mining and energy development.
»» Criteria for the program include impacts on infrastructure, groundwater, stormwater and other
environmental factors.
Massachusetts
• Sustainable Development Principles have been established for the state as a whole.5
• Executive Order 385, Planning for Growth, directs state agencies to promote smart growth
principles.
New Hampshire
• The state’s Smart Growth Legislation is found in N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9-B:1 to B:6.
»» The legislation also declares that state agencies must encourage smart growth.
• New Hampshire’s State Land Use Enabling Act is found in N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. ch. 674.
»» The act explains that part of the purpose of master plans is to guide the local planning board in
implementing smart growth principles (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 674:2).
Rhode Island
• The Rhode Island Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Act is found in R.I.G.L. § 45-22.2.
~~ Includes Land Use 2025: Rhode Island State Land Use Policies and Plan (April 13, 2006).
4
See, e.g., 12 M.R.S. § 685-A(4-A).
5
Sustainable Development Principles, Mass.gov,
http://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/pdf/patrick-principles.pdf (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
146
Vermont
• Act 250 establishes a statewide permitting program, which regulates many subdivisions and new
commercial land uses.6
• Act 183 sets forth smart growth guiding principles for municipalities.
• The goals section of Act 200, 24 V.S.A. § 4302(c)(1), make intensive residential development a
goal of regional and municipal planning.
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 32-7 allows municipal and regional economic development agencies to apply
for technical and/or financial assistance to conduct land use studies.
• Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 16a-35c to -35h prioritizes funding for development projects planned in des-
ignated growth centers.
Maine
• A subsection of the Growth Management Act, 30-A M.S.R. §§ 4345–49A, provides for state finan-
cial and technical assistance:
»» The provision allows municipalities or regions to apply for grant money and/or technical assis-
tance to develop and implement land use plans.
Massachusetts
• The Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development Growth Districts Initiative collabo-
rates with municipalities to streamline permitting, re-use existing land, designate growth districts
and promote efficient transportation systems.7
New Hampshire
• Pursuant to N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. ch. 9-B, state agencies fund downtown revitalization projects and
infrastructure in municipalities, in keeping with smart growth principles.9
Rhode Island
• R.I.G.L. § 45-22.2-11 allows municipalities to apply for state technical assistance and/or grant
money to develop comprehensive land use plans.
6
See Act 250, Vt. Natural Res. Bd. (May 25, 2011), http://www.nrb.state.vt.us/lup/publications/nrb1.pdf.
7
Growth Districts Initiative Description, Mass.gov,
http://www.mass.gov/hed/economic/eohed/pro/gdi/growth-districts.html (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
8
Smart Growth/Smart Energy Toolkit, Mass.gov [hereinafter Smart Growth/Smart Energy Toolkit],
http://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/pages/how-to-SG.html (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
9
See Report on Growth Management, N.H. Council on Res. and Dev. 6–7 (Nov. 2010),
http://www.nh.gov/oep/planning/programs/cord/documents/smart-growth.pdf.
• 24 V.S.A. ch. 76A allows for historic downtown development.10 The legislation allows municipali-
ties to:
»» Receive state technical and financial assistance toward economic development and infrastruc-
ture in that growth center.
• Municipalities have voluntarily created regional planning organizations, which are governed by
Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 8-31 to 8-37b.
Maine
• A subsection of the Growth Management Act, 30-A M.S.R. §§ 2301–42, establishes regional plan-
ning commissions, which:
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
»» Membership is voluntary, but the number of representatives a participating town has is propor-
tional to the town’s population.
Rhode Island
Vermont
• The state has 12 regional planning districts, headed by regional planning commissions.
10
See Designation Program Reform, Part II, Working Group on Industrial Parks 1–5 (Sept. 13, 2013),
http://accd.vermont.gov/strong_communities/opportunities/revitalization/growth_center (describing the program).
148
»» Each town is a member of its respective regional planning commission by statute
(24 V.S.A. § 4342).
»» Despite membership, a municipality is not required to pay dues to its regional planning
commission, nor adhere to any regional plan the commission creates (24 V.S.A. §§ 4349, 4362).
»» Regional planning commissions offer technical and legal planning assistance to towns (24
V.S.A. § 4345a).
»» These planning commissions also review local plans for regional consistency every five years.
»» Regional planning commissions are partially funded by the state (24 V.S.A. § 4362).
»» For local land use ordinances, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-17a; and
»» For municipal planning commissions, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 8-18 to 8-30f, with specific language
about subdivision regulations, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-23.
Maine
»» The Site Location of Development Act creates a statewide permitting program that regulates
development projects larger than 20 acres, and some mining and energy development. Criteria
for that program include impacts on infrastructure, groundwater, stormwater and other envi-
ronmental factors, 38 M.S.R. §§ 481–90.
• In 2012, Maine eliminated confusing provisions and revised its legislation governing land use in
unorganized territories.11
Massachusetts
~~ These provisions create overlay zoning districts that permit high-density residential
development as of right.
• Proposed bill H. 1859 is an act promoting the planning and development of sustainable
communities. It would:
»» Remove permitting obstacles for high-density zoning, multifamily housing, transferrable devel-
opment rights, and other smart growth techniques.
11
See generally An Act To Reform Land Use Planning in the Unorganized Territory, H.P. 1325, L.D. 1798 (codified as
amended in scattered sections of 5 M.R.S., 12 M.R.S., 35-A M.R.S., 38 M.R.S. (2012)), available at
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=HP1325&item=8&snum=125.
12
See Smart Growth/Smart Energy Toolkit, supra note 8.
»» The New Hampshire State Land Use Enabling Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. ch. 674. Under this
legislation:
~~ The master plan must adhere to smart growth principles (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 674:2); and
~~ Towns are empowered to use innovative land use controls, such as transferrable development
rights and planned unit developments, which facilitate smart growth.
Rhode Island
»» For zoning ordinances, R.I.G.L. § 45-24, which must be consistent with the local comprehensive
plan; and
• Rhode Island encouraged integrating agriculture into mixed use and dense urban development by
amending its state zoning legislation to make agriculture a permitted use in residential, industrial
and commercial districts.13
Vermont
Mapping
Connecticut
• The University of Connecticut’s Center for Land Use Education and Research “provides informa-
tion, education and assistance to Connecticut’s land use decision makers, community organiza-
tions and citizens on how to better protect natural resources while accommodating economic
growth.”15
13
See R.I. Pub. Laws 2011, ch. 401, § 1(amending R.I.G.L. § 45-24-37); R.I. Pub. Laws 2012, ch. 342, § 1
(amending R.I.G.L. § 45-24-37).
14
Conservation & Development Policies Plan for Connecticut: Location Guide Map, CT.gov,
http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/igp/org/cdupdate/lgm_adopted.pdf (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
15
Center for Land Use Education and Research, Univ. Conn., http://clear.uconn.edu/ (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
150
Maine
• Maine’s Office of GIS has mapping technology, but it is not primarily intended for land use planning.16
Massachusetts
• The mapping system of the Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS) is online and has data for
watersheds, forests and agriculture, but does not necessarily have local zoning data.17
»» The data is not primarily intended for land use planning.
»» Municipalities can access and use the MassGIS. At additional cost, municipalities can buy soft-
ware and hire GIS staff, who can then add new local data.
New Hampshire
• The Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System mapping system was
created by the University of New Hampshire, in collaboration with the Office of Energy and
Planning.18
»» The system maps land uses, but is not primarily used for planning.
Rhode Island
• The state created a land use map with GIS technology in 2006 and 2007.
• The map and data are available online as a resource for planners.19
• Rhode Island also has a future land use 2025 map, which was created as part of its State Guide Plan.
»» This map identifies desired land uses and designates growth areas.
»» It was included in the Land Use 2025 state plan as a general guide for municipalities.
Vermont
• The Vermont Center for Geographical Information is a public nonprofit organization that has com-
prehensive GIS mapping of the state.20
• The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources has a BioFinder map, which focuses on watersheds
and natural resources.
• The mapping done by these entities is not primarily used for land use planning.
16
Maine Office of GIS, Maine.gov, http://www.maine.gov/megis/ (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
17
Office of Geographic Information, Mass.gov, http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/
application-serv/office-of-geographic-information-massgis/ (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
18
NH Grant, Univ. N.H., http://www.granit.unh.edu/ (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
19
Rhode Island Geographic Information System, RIGIS, http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis/.
20
Vermont Center for Geographic Information, Vermont.gov, http://vcgi.vermont.gov/ (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
Federal
• The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) assessment measures the quality of farm-
land soils and other factors that affect farm viability, such as proximity to water and parcel size.
Sites that score high, meaning they are more valuable for farming, require further analysis includ-
ing the proposal of alternative sites. Federal agencies use this information to complete the overall
site assessment.21
• In fiscal year 2011, an NRCS evaluation found that of a total of 202,513 acres that were pro-
posed for conversion to nonagricultural uses, 49 percent were identified as important farmland.
Approximately 3 percent of the reviews conducted by NRCS in fiscal year 2011 offered alternative
sites. Two agencies — the Federal Highway Administration and the Department of Energy —
accounted for 53 percent of all proposed conversions.22
• In addition to project evaluation, the Farmland Protection Policy Act directs each federal gov-
ernment agency to review its rules and procedures, with assistance from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), to determine whether any policies prevent the agency from complying with
the law. Agencies must develop proposals to bring their programs into compliance and submit
reports to NRCS describing steps taken to comply with the law.23
Connecticut
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-6 gives the commissioner of agriculture the authority to review projects.
• The statute has been used in at least one instance, when the town of Cromwell received funding
through the state’s Small Town Economic Assistance Program to develop a business park.
»» Because the project included the development of nearly 100 acres of prime farmland, the com-
missioner of agriculture was able to review the project.
»» Through subsequent negotiations, state funding for the project included a condition that the
town must create a farmland preservation committee that was charged with conducting an
inventory of farms, developing a farmland preservation strategy and identifying farms for
conservation.
»» A 2012 report from the committee includes a recommendation that the town create a farmland
preservation program with the goal of protecting 200 acres, twice the acreage developed by
the business park.24
21
Mitigation of Farmland Loss, Am. Farmland Trust 3–26 (Sept. 2002) [hereinafter Mitigation of Farmland Loss],
http://www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/FPPA_Mitigation_Report_1.pdf.
22
Farmland Protection Policy Act Annual Report for FY 2011, USDA Natural Res. Conservation Serv. 3 (Feb. 2011),
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1049239.pdf.
23
Mitigation of Farmland Loss, supra note 21, at 5.
24
Final Report, Town of Cromwell Farmland Preservation Comm. 1 (Feb. 9, 2012),
http://cromwellct.com/whatsnew%20files/2012/fpc%20final%20report%20text31612.pdf.
152
Massachusetts
• Under Executive Order 193, state-owned land suitable for agriculture must be identified and state
agencies controlling this land are required to coordinate agricultural land management policy
with the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and the Department of Agricultural
Resources.
• The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act is located in M.G.L.c. 30 § 61, and implementing reg-
ulations are found at 301 C.M.R. § 11.00.
Vermont
• The Connecticut Farmland Preservation Program was created in 1978 by Conn. Gen. Stat. §§
22-26aa to 22-26kk and has protected a total of 38,025 acres. The program has spent $126 million
in state funds through bonding and the Community Investment Act, and has leveraged an addi-
tional $38 million from federal, local and private sources.25
• The Maine Farmland Protection Program was created in 1999 and has protected a total of 8,104
acres. The program has spent $7.5 million in state funds through appropriations and bonding, and
has leveraged an additional $7.5 million from federal, local and private sources.26
• New Hampshire’s three farmland protection programs — Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
(created in 1979 by N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. ch. 432:18-35); the Land Conservation Investment Program
(created in 1987); and the Land and Community Heritage Investment Program (created in 2000
by N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. ch. 227-M) — have protected a total of 13,590 acres. The programs have
spent a combined total of $16.2 million in state funds through appropriations, bonding and record-
ing fees, and have leveraged an additional $17.3 million from federal, local and private sources.28
• Rhode Island’s Purchase of Farmland Development Rights Program was created in 1981 by R.I.G.L.
chs. 42–82 and has protected a total of 6,645 acres. The program has spent $30.3 million in state
funds through bonding, appropriations and transportation funding, and has leveraged an addi-
tional $43.9 million from federal, local and private sources.29
• Vermont’s Farmland Preservation Program was created in 1987 by 6 V.C.A. ch. 2, and is run through
the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board. The program has protected a total of 139,000
acres, has spent $62.8 million in state funds through bonding, appropriations, mitigation fees, the
real estate transfer tax and transportation funding, and has leveraged an additional $79.6 million
from federal, local and private sources.30
25
See Fact Sheet: Status of State PACE Programs, Am. Farmland Trust *2 (Aug. 2005),
http://www.farmland.org/about/mission/documents/AFT_Pace_state_8-05.pdf.
26
Id.
27
Id.
28
Id.
29
Id.
30
Id.
31
See Agricultural Conservation Easement Language from Selected Farmland Protection Programs, Am. Farmland Trust
*55, http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/39352/Easement_Language_No_Notes_October_2012.pdf
(last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
154
• The Vermont Farmland Preservation Program includes an option to purchase protected land at
its agricultural value for the state (or grantee) when the landowner enters into a purchase and
sale agreement with a third party. Once a sale agreement has been reached, the landowner must
notify the state, which will have 30 days to exercise the option to purchase. This option is not
applicable when the transfer of ownership is to certain family members or to a qualified farmer
who earns at least half of his or her income from farming.
• Since fall 2012, there have been 98 resales of protected farms with an option to purchase at agri-
cultural value in Massachusetts and 87 in Vermont.32
• The option to purchase at agricultural value was only considered in 10 of the 87 sales of pro-
tected farmland in Vermont; the remaining sales were between family members or to qualified
farmers. In nine of the 10 cases that could have triggered the option to purchase at agricultural
value, the option was not exercised based on the buyers’ business plans for the farms and their
credentials as prospective farmers. In the lone exception, the easement holder, Vermont Land
Trust, purchased the farm and became an interim owner. In Massachusetts, all the sales of farms
with the option to purchase at agricultural value were qualified sales and the option has not yet
been exercised.33
• The review of protected farm sales in Massachusetts and Vermont found that existing farm-
ers expanding their current farming operations represented the largest group of buyers. In
Massachusetts, more than half of the individuals purchasing the protected land were doing so to
expand existing farming operations. In Vermont, 78 percent of the arms-length, nonfamily, sales
were to established farmers.34
• The analysis of protected farm resales in Vermont and Massachusetts clearly show that the option
to purchase at agricultural value is working as intended, by keeping protected land in the hands
of farmers and farm families. It is not necessarily ensuring that protected farmland is affordable to
all sectors of farmers interested in purchasing it, however.35
• Under the federal enhanced conservation tax incentive, which expired at the end of 2013, qualified
farmers and ranchers could deduct up to 100 percent of their adjusted gross income for donating
a conservation easement. Nonqualified farmers could deduct up to 50 percent of their adjusted
gross income annually. The donor could carry forward unused portions of the deduction for 15
years.36 Prior to enactment of the enhanced incentive in 2006, and under current law unless and
until the enhanced incentive is reauthorized, the federal deduction for a conservation easement is
limited to 30 percent of a donor’s adjusted gross income and can be carried forward for only five
years. Introduced in 2013, H.R. 2807 and S. 526 would make the enhanced incentives permanent
and apply retroactively to easements donated since December 31, 2013. Neither measure had
been acted on as of January 2014.37
32
Does the Option at Agricultural Value Protect Farmland for Beginning Farmers? A Policy Analysis 4, Land for Good
(2013), http://newyork.farmland.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/OPAV-FINAL.pdf.
33
Id.
34
Id. at 5.
35
Id. at 2.
36
The enhanced incentive was created in the 2006 Pension Protection Act, extended through 2009 in the 2008 Farm
Bill, and then extended through 2011 by section 723 of H. R. 4853. See The Enhanced Easement Incentive, Land Trust Alli-
ance, http://www.landtrustalliance.org/policy/tax-matters/campaigns/the-enhanced-easement-incentive (last visited Jan.
13, 2014).
37
See The Enhanced Easement Incentive, Land Trust Alliance, http://www.landtrustalliance.org/policy/tax-matters/
campaigns/the-enhanced-easement-incentive (last visited Jan. 13, 2014).
• The Massachusetts Conservation Land Tax Credit was created in 2009 by M.G.L.c. 62 § 6(p) and
M.G.L.c. 38AA. It provides a state income tax credit for donations or for any discount of the price
in any sale of land or conservation easement. The value of the credit is 50 percent of the dona-
tion’s fair market value, up to a maximum value of $50,000. The credit is refundable; if a farmer
or landowner does not have income against which to offset the credit in the year that the sale or
gift was made, the state will refund to the landowner the difference, up to $50,000 or 50 percent
of the donated value, whichever is less. The program has a cap of $2 million per year. The sale or
donation must be to the state, a municipality or a nonprofit land conservation organization. To be
eligible, the land must be in the public interest for natural resource protection, including drink-
ing water supplies, wildlife habitat and biological diversity, agricultural and forestry production,
recreational opportunities, or scenic and cultural values. An application process determines the
land’s eligibility.
38
Public Act 09-3 extended the carry-forward period from 15 years to 25 years, effective Sept. 9, 2009, and applicable
to income years on or after Jan. 1, 2009. See An Act Concerning Certain State Programs and the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, H.B. 6715, Conn. Pub. Act 09-03 (Apr. 15, 2009).
156
APPENDIX F: URBAN AGRICULTURE: ZONING
State Law
Connecticut
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-2 states that “zoning regulations shall be made with reasonable consideration
for their impact on agriculture.”
Massachusetts
M.G.L.c. 40A § 3, contains a general prohibition against local zoning ordinances and bylaws regulat-
ing or restricting commercial agriculture parcels that are at least five acres, or at least two acres if
each acre produces more than $1,000 in gross sales.
New Hampshire
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 674:32-a creates a presumption that primary and accessory agricultural activ-
ities are permitted wherever they are not explicitly excluded uses, as long as they are “conducted in
accordance with best management practices adopted by the commissioner of agriculture, markets,
and food and with federal and state laws, regulations, and rules.” N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 674:32-c(I)
provides that tilling soil and harvesting crops, as a primary or accessory use, cannot be prohibited in
any district. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 674:32-c (II) provides that such uses are subject to general building
and site requirements, such as dimensional standards and setbacks, but creates a waiver process if
those requirements would effectively prohibit agriculture that is otherwise permitted by that statute.
Rhode Island
State law provides that plant agriculture is a permitted use in all zoning districts — residential, com-
mercial and industrial — except as necessary to protect public health or wildlife habitat, according to
R.I.G.L. § 45-24-37(g). A municipality is otherwise free to restrict agricultural uses, as long as those
regulations comply with Rhode Island’s Zoning Enabling Act, R.I.G.L. § 45-24.
Vermont
Vermont municipal bylaws “shall not regulate accepted agricultural and silvicultural practices, includ-
ing the construction of farm structures, as those practices are defined by the secretary of agriculture,
food and markets or the commissioner of forests, parks and recreation, respectively, under 10 V.S.A.
§§ 1021(f) and 1259(f) and 6 V.S.A. § 4810.”39 Accepted agricultural practices, as adopted, imple-
mented and enforced by the secretary of agriculture, food, and markets, are standards applicable to
“activities which have a potential for causing pollutants to enter the groundwater and waters of the
state, including dairy and other livestock operations plus all forms of crop and nursery operations
and on-farm or agricultural fairground, registered pursuant to 20 V.S.A. § 3902, livestock and poultry
slaughter and processing activities.”40 Anyone building a farm structure must notify the appropriate
municipality of his or her intent to build, but need not obtain a permit from the municipality. Farm
structures must abide by setbacks provided by the secretary of agriculture, food, and markets.41
39 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d).
40 6 V.S.A. § 4810.
41 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d).
• The Agricultural Assets Transfer Tax Credit was created in 2006 by Iowa Code § 175.37 and pro-
vides a tax credit to the owners of agricultural assets, including agricultural land, depreciable
machinery or equipment, breeding livestock and buildings, for leasing land or other assets to
beginning farmers.
• To qualify, the beginning farmers to whom the owners lease must have a net worth of less than
$343,000; be at least 18 years old; and “have sufficient education and training to operate a pro-
duction operation.”42
• The lease term must be between two and five years, and the lease value must be at or near
market value.
• Tax credits are 5 percent of the rental income received for cash rent or 15 percent of the owner’s
share of product for crop or livestock share agreements. The credit can be carried forward for five
years and can be transferred to a related party.43
• From 2007 through 2011, the program issued 2,624 credits at a value of more than $15 million.44
• The Beginning Farmer Tax Credit was created in 2009 by the Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-5201 to 77-5215.
It provides a tax credit to the owners of agricultural assets, including agricultural land, cattle,
tractors, grain storage, irrigation equipment and other assets, for leasing land or other assets to
beginning farmers.
• To qualify, beginning farmers to whom the owners lease must have a net worth of less than
$200,000; have farmed or ranched fewer than 10 of the past 15 years; plan to farm full-time; have
farming experience or education; and have participated in a financial management education
program.
• Participating beginning farmers receive up to a $500 tax credit reimbursement for the financial
management class.
• The lease term must be three years and the lease value must be at or near market value.
• Tax credits are 10 percent of the rental income received for cash rent or 15 percent of the owner’s
share of the product for crop or livestock share agreements.45 From 2005 through 2009, the pro-
gram issued credits to 435 asset owners at a value of $1.9 million.46
42
Iowa Beginning Farmer Tax Credit, Iowa State. Univ., http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%22have%20
sufficient%20education%20and%20training%20to%20operate%20a%20production%20operation%22source=web&
cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calt.iastate.edu%2FPDF%2FIowa%2520Beginning
2520Farmer%2520Tax%2520Credit.docx&ei=OxW6UtmjMKzNsQTHz4G4Cw&usg=AFQjCNHOukL_tt-ky
Vuar1i3pxYlWxekDQ&bvm=bv.58187178,d.cWc (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
43
See generally Iowa Beginning Farmer Tax Credit, Iowa Finance Auth., http://iowafinanceauthority.gov/Public/Pages/
PC204LN48 (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
44
Id.
45
See generally Beginning Farmer Programs — Tax Credit Program, Neb. Dep’t of Agric., http://www.agr.ne.gov/beg_
farmer/taxcp.html (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
46
See Beginning Farmer Tax Credit Act—Annual Report, Neb. Dep’t of Agric. 5 (June 2009), http://nlc1.nlc.state.ne.us/
epubs/A5000/A004-200809.pdf.
158
APPENDIX H: FINANCING LAND ACQUISITION
• The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Accounts Pilot Program was created
in the 2008 Farm Bill (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, section 5301).
• Eligible beginning farmers or ranchers are those who do not have significant financial resources
or assets and have an income less than 80 percent of the median income of the state in which
they live, or 200 percent of the most recent annual federal poverty income guidelines published
by the Department of Health and Human Services.
• Any nonprofit organization, tribe, local or state government can apply to the USDA to receive
a grant, establish and administer the individual development accounts, and provide access to
business and financial education. State programs listed below could potentially participate in
the program if they were designed to meet the program objectives of purchasing farmland, farm
equipment or other assets. The administering entity of the program establishes a reserve fund
made up of the total amount of the individual development account grant — up to $250,000 —
and a nonfederal match of 50 percent of that award.
• Program participants are required to complete financial training programs and develop a savings
plan before the funds may be withdrawn to purchase assets.
• The Connecticut Individual Development Account Initiative was created by the state’s General
Assembly in 2000 through Public Act 00-192. It is designed to help families and individuals pur-
chase assets including a home, small business, post-secondary education or vehicle, or place a
deposit on an apartment. As of 2011, the Connecticut legislature has appropriated roughly $2.34
million to the Department of Labor for the initiative.47
• Businesses that contribute to state funds for the Individual Development Account Initiative can
receive tax credits through the state’s Human Capital Investment Tax Credit.48
• Title 10 M.R.S. sections 1075–79 establish a family development account program that lets eligible
people establish savings accounts for education, job training, purchasing or repairing a home,
purchasing or repairing a vehicle for access to work or education, capitalization of a small busi-
ness, health care costs greater than $500 not covered by private or public insurance, or other
basic necessities. The program is administered by community development organizations.
47
See generally Connecticut Individual Development Account Initiative, Conn. Dep’t of Labor, http://www.ctdol.state.
ct.us/ida/idahome.htm.
48
See Connecticut Individual Development Account Initiative (IDA): Frequently Asked Questions, Conn. Dep’t of Labor,
http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/ida/dir/faq.html (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
New Hampshire
• Some individual development account programs exist, but are administered by nongovernmental
agencies.
• The Individual Development Account program is administered by the Vermont Department for
Children and Families through Community Action Agencies. The program helps income-eligible
individuals save money to buy a home, pursue higher education or capitalize a small business.
Participants’ savings are matched at varying rates by third parties such as businesses, govern-
ment, financial institutions or philanthropic organizations. Savings are matched two-to-one on
$500 savings for up to two years.50
• This program is designed to help young farmers acquire farmland through a long-term, no-inter-
est loan, which cannot exceed $500,000.
• In exchange for the loan, the farmland being acquired is subjected at closing to a permanent
preservation easement.
»» The applicant must be between 18 and 40 years old at the time the loan
»» The farmland must contain at least 15 tillable acres, and the applicant must not own or have an
ownership interest in more than twice the tillable acres subject to purchase with funds from
the program.
»» The applicant must commit that he or she will remain actively engaged in agricultural usage of
the farmland during the term of the program loan.51
49
See Individual Development Account, Mass.gov,
http://www.mass.gov/hed/community/funding/individual-development-account-ida.html (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
50
See generally Individual Development Accounts, Vermont.gov, http://dcf.vermont.gov/oeo/ida
(last visited Dec. 24 2013).
51
See Farmland Purchase and Preservation Loan Program Procedures and Guidelines, Del. Agric. Lands Preservation
Found., http://dda.delaware.gov/young_farmers_packet.pdf (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
160
New Brunswick New Land Purchase Program
• The program in New Brunswick, Canada, purchases land and leases it to an applicant for up to six
years. The applicant agrees to purchase the land at the end of the lease.
»» During the first and second years, annual lease payments are deferred based on the equivalent
of the annual provincial lending rate and the lease amount.
»» Starting in year three, annual lease payments are made at the beginning of each year.
»» The proposed land has not had any agricultural crop produced or harvested during the previ-
ous two years.
52
See New Land Purchase Program, New Brunswick, Ca., http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/services/
services_renderer.201160.New_Land_Purchase_Program_.html (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
»» The University of Connecticut’s College of Agriculture and Natural Resources offers a bachelor
of science in 15 majors, including animal science, horticulture and turfgrass and soil science. The
Ratcliffe Hicks School of Agriculture has a two-year associate degree with majors in ornamental
horticulture, turfgrass management and animal science, which offers concentrations in equine
science or dairy and livestock management.54
»» The University of New Hampshire offers an EcoGastronomy dual major, which can be paired
with any primary major. EcoGastronomy integrates sustainable agriculture, hospitality manage-
ment and nutrition, and emphasizes “the interdisciplinary, international, and experiential knowl-
edge that connects all three fields.”55 The University of New Hampshire also offers degrees in
sustainable agriculture and food systems, as well as integrated agriculture management.56
Business Planning
Massachusetts Matching Enterprise Grants for Agriculture Program
• Farmers do not need to own their land, but must have a written lease agreement.
• In 2013, a total of $82,600 was awarded to 10 projects, including for the purchase of equipment
to improve production and post-harvest operations and equipment to create value-added prod-
ucts. Funding also went toward infrastructure improvements, such as irrigation systems and farm
stands.58
Access to Capital
USDA-Farm Service Agency
• Under the Down Payment Program, the maximum Farm Service Agency (FSA) loan amount is
$225,000. The remaining portion must come from other sources. The loan term is 20 years, with
53
Sustainable Agriculture Program, Univ. of Me., http://umaine.edu/sag/more/ (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
54
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources: Degree Programs, Univ. of Conn.,
http://www.myagnr.uconn.edu/degrees.php (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
55
Dual Major in EcoGastronomy, Univ. of N.H., http://www.unh.edu/ecogastronomy/ (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
56
Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems, Univ. of N.H., http://www.sustainableag.unh.edu/ (last visited Dec. 2, 2013);
Thompson School of Applied Science, Univ. of N.H., http://www.thompsonschool.unh.edu/hort/iamt
(last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
57
See Matching Enterprise Grants for Agriculture Program, Mass.gov,
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/agr/about/divisions/mega.html (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
58
Patrick-Murray Administration Awards Matching Grants for Beginning Massachusetts Farms, Mass.gov, http://www.
mass.gov/eea/pr-2013/admin-awards-matching-grants-for-beginning-ma-farms.html (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
162
an interest rate that is 4 percent lower than the regular FSA direct ownership loan rate, but no
less than 1.5 percent.59
• Under the Loan Contract Guarantees Program, the buyer must provide a down payment of at
least 5 percent. The guarantee period is 10 years.60
• The microloan program is administered through the Operating Loan Program. The microloan pro-
gram includes financing for niche crops sold directly to ethnic markets and farmers markets.
Loans can cover initial start-up expenses such as hoop houses, tools, irrigation, delivery vehi-
cles, and annual expenses such as seed, fertilizer, utilities, land rental, marketing and distribution
expenses.61
• The Farm Service Agency reserves a portion of several loan funds exclusively for beginning farm-
ers, including 35 percent of Direct Farm Operating loans, 40 percent of Guaranteed Operating
loans, 70 percent of Direct Farm Ownership loans and 25 percent of Guaranteed Farm Ownership
loans.62
»» Direct Operating loans of up to $300,000 may be used for normal operating expenses, machin-
ery and equipment, minor real estate repairs or improvements, and refinancing debt. The repay-
ment term may vary, but typically will not exceed seven years; annual operating loans are gen-
erally repaid within 12 months.63
»» In a Guaranteed Operating loan, the FSA guarantees up to 90 percent (95 percent in certain
cases) of a loan from a commercial lender for normal operating expenses, machinery and equip-
ment, minor real estate repairs or improvements, and refinancing debt. The guarantee is limited
to $1.3 million, adjusted annually for inflation; the repayment term may vary, but typically will
not exceed seven years; annual operating loans are generally repaid within 12 months.64
»» Direct Farm Ownership loans of up to $300,000 may be used to purchase a farm, enlarge an
existing farm, construct new farm buildings, improve farm structures, or pay closing costs. The
maximum repayment term is 40 years.65
»» In a Guaranteed Farm Ownership loan, the FSA will guarantee up to 90 percent (95 percent in
certain cases) of a loan from a commercial lender to purchase a farm, enlarge an existing farm,
construct new farm buildings, improve farm structures, or pay closing costs. The guarantee
is limited to $1.3 million, adjusted annually for inflation; the maximum repayment term is 40
years.66
Aggie Bonds
• Under an Aggie Bond program, a state creates a bond that allows lenders to earn federally tax-ex-
empt interest on loans to eligible beginning farmers and ranchers. With these tax savings, lenders
can offer reduced rates on these loans. Aggie Bonds were enhanced in the 2008 Farm Bill by
increasing the maximum loan amount for land to $450,000 per farmer, adjusted annually for
59
Farm Service Agency Guaranteed Lender Training, USDA 43 (Sept. 2013), http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_
File/2013fsagulendertraining.pdf.
60
Id.
61
Id. at 41.
62
See generally Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Loans, USDA, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&sub-
ject=fmlp&topic=bfl (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
63
Fact Sheet: Farm Loans, USDA 1 (Oct. 2012), http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/loanprograms2012.pdf.
64
Id.
65
Id.
66
Id.
• The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program is a grant program administered by
the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Collaborative state, local or regionally based
networks and partnerships between public and private entities are eligible to apply. These may
include a state cooperative extension service, a state agency, a community-based, nongovern-
mental organization, or a college or university. Grants are limited to three years and $250,000 per
year, with a minimum 25 percent nonfederal match.68
• The program addresses production and management strategies to enhance land stewardship;
business management and decision support strategies that enhance financial viability, marketing
strategies that enhance competitiveness, legal strategies that assist with farm or land acquisition
and transfer, and other topics to enhance competitiveness and sustainability.
Recent Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Grants Made to New England Entities69
2012
• The University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System received $520,026 for Scaling Up:
Helping Connecticut’s Beginning Farmers Evolve from Small-Scale Enterprises into Viable Farm
Businesses. The project offers tailored support to 10 beginning farmers to evolve their small-scale
farms to viable farm businesses. In a second phase, the project will develop new training tools
and curriculum in production planning, farm infrastructure and non-production management. The
project will assist farmers looking for farmland to lease and host a scaling up conference.70
• The Organization for Refugee and Immigrant Success received $358,484 for a project to help new
Americans build sustainable farm enterprises that are consistent with their culture and lifestyle
aspirations and that strengthen regional, sustainable food systems as a whole.
2011
• The Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association received $532,045 to enhance and expand
its Journeyperson Farm Training Program, which offers a two-year package of educational and
financial support — including mentorship from an experienced farmer, business and management
training and scholarship funds — to new farmers in Maine.
• The Somali Bantu Association of New Hampshire received $78,889 to help Somali Bantu, Bhutanese
and other refugee groups build sustainable farm enterprises that are consistent with their culture
and lifestyle aspirations and that strengthen regional, sustainable food systems as a whole.
67
State with Aggie Bond programs: Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Washington. See Index of
U.S. States’ Agricultural Finance Programs, Nat’l Council of State Agric. Finance Programs,
http://www.stateagfinance.org/# (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
68
See Guide to USDA Funding for Local and Regional Food Systems, Nat’l Sustainable Agric. Coal. 4–14 (Apr. 2010),
http://sustainableagriculture.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/NSAC_FoodSystemsFundingGuide_FirstEdition_4_2010.
pdf.
69
Current Research Information System, USDA, http://cris.nifa.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/0?path=fastlink1.
txt&id=anon&pass=&search=CG=(*-49400*)%20AND%20GY=2009:2012&format=WEBTITLESG (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
70
Interview with Jiff Martin, Sustainable Food Systems, Univ. Conn, Coop. Extension (Nov. 27, 2012).
164
• The Rhode Island Association of Conservation Districts received $148,853 to provide beginning
farmers with access to land, equipment and mentoring while they hone their skills and establish
their businesses. The grant helped establish a shared equipment bank and develop an online deci-
sion-making exploration tool and farm business course modules to improve access to regionally
relevant information.
• The Vermont New Farmer Network Strategies for Success project, at the University of Vermont’s
Extension received $659,784 for a three-year effort to strengthen capacity providing education,
technical assistance, coaching and mentoring to beginning farmers in the areas of production and
management strategies, business management and decision support, marketing strategies, legal
strategies, and topics related to processing safe and nutritious food.
2010
• Nuestras Raices received $740,131 for Tierra de Oportunidades, an immigrant and refugee begin-
ning farmer training and incubation program in western and central Massachusetts.
• The Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University received $749,014 for the
Massachusetts Beginning Farmer Agricultural Alliance, a statewide collaboration of farmers and
more than 40 farm service providers. The program’s aim was to promote and coordinate educa-
tion, training and technical assistance opportunities for hundreds of beginning farmers.
• Land For Good received $547,307 for a project to assure land access for New England’s beginning
farmers by filling specific program gaps, building professional capacity, informing and assisting
target audiences, and developing and disseminating land tenure and transfer innovations.
2009
• Cultivating Community received $600,000 for a project called Cultivating New American Farmers
and Youth Entrepreneurs in Maine and New Hampshire. The project worked to increase partici-
pant’s self-sufficiency by providing job training and/or relevant marketing, financial and business
planning information.
Maine
The Maine Natural Resources Protection Act (38 M.R.S. §§ 480-A to 480-HH) requires any person
“draining or otherwise dewatering” a body of water to first obtain a permit. The Department of
Environmental Protection may grant or deny such a permit based on several factors reflecting a
standard reasonable-use balancing test. The Maine Water Withdrawal Reporting Program (Me. Rev.
Stat. tit. 38, §§ 470-A to 470-H) generally requires large withdrawals of water to be reported. The
threshold for reporting is determined relative to the size of the water body from which water is being
withdrawn. Agricultural producers, however, are exempt from this reporting requirement. Overall,
water withdrawals may not draw down streams below a level that protects both water quality and
aquatic life.
Massachusetts
The Massachusetts Water Management Act (M.G.L.c. 21G) requires anyone withdrawing more than
100,000 gallons of water per day to first get a permit. The Department of Environmental Protection
may grant or deny such a permit based on several factors reflecting a standard reasonable-use
balancing test.
New Hampshire
The New Hampshire Groundwater Protection Act (N.H. Rev. Stat. ch. 485C) requires anyone withdraw-
ing more than 57,600 gallons of groundwater per day to get prior approval from the Department of
Environmental Services. The department may grant or deny such approval based on several factors
reflecting a standard reasonable-use balancing test. N.H. Rev. Stat. ch. 488 requires anyone who with-
draws 20,000 gallons per day or 600,000 gallons per 30-month period to register this withdrawal
with the department.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island has no water-allocation permitting regime.
Vermont
A chapter of the Vermont Statutes titled Groundwater Protection (10 V.S.A. ch. 48) requires anyone
withdrawing 57,600 gallons of water per day to first obtain a permit. Groundwater withdrawal for
agriculture is exempt from this permit requirement. Vermont also generally requires anyone with-
drawing 20,000 gallons of water per day to register this withdrawal with the secretary of natural
resources. Groundwater withdrawal for agriculture and for dairy farmers is exempt from this report-
ing requirement.
166
APPENDIX K: RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND EXTENSION
• The National Institute of Food and Agriculture was created in the 2008 Farm Bill as a reorga-
nization of the USDA Research, Education and Economics and the former Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Service.71
• The Institute’s nearly 40 competitive grant programs for research, extension and higher educa-
tion activities include multiple funding opportunities. Eligibility and funding levels vary widely and
some grants are addressed in other sections of this report.72
• Through at least 11 formula grants, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture provides funding
to land-grant institutions, schools of forestry and veterinary schools. The level of funding pro-
vided to each institution under formula grants is determined by a method, often defined in federal
statutes, that includes variables such as farm and rural populations. Decisions about the allocation
of these funds to specific projects are made at the state or university level.
• The institute provides noncompetitive grant funding for projects authorized by Congress to sup-
port a designated institution or set of institutions for particular research, education or extension
topics of importance to a state or region.73
Agricultural Experiment Stations
• The Hatch Act of 1887 initiated federal funding for stations and established them as part of land-
grant colleges across the country; the stations work closely with cooperative extension.
• Most stations still operate under the colleges, although some, such as the Connecticut Agricultural
Experiment Station, are separate state agencies.
• Experiment stations exist in all six New England states and often have multiple locations.
• Important research continues today: In Massachusetts, for example, scientists are examining the
possible effects of climate change by exploring the impact on agricultural crops of increased
carbon dioxide and ozone levels.74
• The focus of experiment stations has expanded and covers a range of topics. In Rhode Island, for
example, research focus areas include aquaculture and fishing, food safety, health and well-being
of fish and animals, landscape horticulture, natural resources, nutrition, and sustainable and nur-
turing communities.75
• The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program is part of the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture. SARE-funded projects range from large, multiyear endeav-
ors that may be awarded grants of between $30,000 and $200,000, to smaller, shorter-term
71
See USDA Nat’l Inst. of Food and Agric., http://www.csrees.usda.gov/index.html (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
72
See Federal Assistance, USDA Nat’l Inst. of Food and Agric.,
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/about/fed_asst.html#formulaGrants (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
73 See id.
74
See Current Research Projects, Univ. Mass. Amherst,
http://ag.umass.edu/current-research-projects (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
75
Rhode Island Agricultural Experiment Station, The Univ. of R.I.,
http://web.uri.edu/riaes/research/ (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
• Research and Education grants typically range from $10,000 to $200,000, and are available to
researchers and nonprofits, university and extension staff, and research farms and experiment
stations. Funded projects offer research, education and demonstration projects that benefit farm-
ers and explore new sustainable farming practices.77
»» In grant year 2010, for example, the University of Vermont was awarded $195,781 to explore
ways to improve the energy efficiency of greenhouses and subsequently reduce production
costs.
»» In 2010, the University of Massachusetts was awarded $193,557 to examine methods to expand
cold season production of vegetables and storage of fall crops to help meet the demand for
local food in winter months.78
• Farmer Grants of $1,000 to $15,000 are available to commercial farmers who have an innovative
idea they want to test using a field trial, on-farm demonstration, marketing initiative or other
technique.
»» In 2012 a Massachusetts farm was awarded $14,951 to explore the use of small sensors through
mobile applications on smartphones and tablets to monitor temperature, moisture and other
variables on vegetable farms.
»» In 2010 a Maine farm was awarded $7,314 to determine the potential for dairy farmers to grow
buckwheat for hay or silage on marginal land, which could reduce feed costs and make better
use of available land.79
• Agricultural service providers, such as extension staff and state departments of agriculture, are
eligible for Partnership Grants of up to $15,000. These grants allow service providers to con-
duct on-farm demonstrations, research, marketing and other projects with farmers as active
cooperators.
»» A grant of $14,923 in 2012 allowed researchers to explore the impact of climate change on rice
production, particularly as relates to available water.80
Cooperative Extension
• Land-grant colleges were established by the Morrill Act of 1862, which granted federal land to
each state to create a college of agriculture; many grew to become large state universities.
• New England’s six land grant universities are the University of Connecticut, the University of
Maine, the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the University of New Hampshire, the University
of Rhode Island and the University of Vermont.
76
The Northeast SARE region also includes Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
Grants and Education to Advance Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture, Northeast SARE, http://www.nesare.org/
(last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
77
Research and Education Grant Overview, Northeast SARE,
http://www.nesare.org/Grants/Get-a-Grant/Research-and-Education-Grant/Grant-Overview (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
78
See generally Research and Education Grant Examples, Northeast SARE,
http://www.nesare.org/Grants/Get-a-Grant/Research-and-Education-Grant/Grant-Examples (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
79
See Farmer Grants, Northeast SARE, http://www.nesare.org/Grants/Get-a-Grant/Farmer-Grant
(last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
80
See Partnership Grants, Northeast SARE, http://www.nesare.org/Grants/Get-a-Grant/Partnership-Grant
(last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
168
• Examples of cooperative extension’s areas of focus in New England include: integrated pest man-
agement; animal agriculture and veterinary medicine; pasture management; soil, fertilization and
nutrient management; and farm business management.
• Examples of the extension system’s support for non-farming programs for urban and suburban
communities include education for home and landowners about composting, lawn management,
and recycling; consumer education including food safety, nutrition and child care; and community
development activities such as helping local governments address job creation, local business
development and land use planning.81
81
See About Us, USDA, http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/extension.html (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
• The Farm Transition Program offers grants of less than $50,000 and was created by Conn. Gen.
Stat. § 22-26j.
• One of the program’s goals is to “support educational activities that will advance agricultural
practices and assist beginning and/or new farmers.”
• Applicants must be a registered farm business or agricultural cooperative and provide a 50 per-
cent cash match and a business plan.82
• In 2012, 16 producers received grants worth a total of $466,611. The awarded projects included
doubling the size of a greenhouse in order to begin production of lettuce, expanding an indoor
mushroom growing facility to increase retail sales of exotic mushrooms, and constructing a milk
house creamery for cheese making. In 2011, $322,800 was awarded for 11 projects, and $554,632
was awarded in 2010 for 21 projects.83
• Competitive grants of up to $40,000 are awarded based on the quality of a submitted business
plan.
• Funds must be used for projects that are defined as capital fixed assets and have a life expectancy
of 10 years or more.
• The funds may be used to expand existing agricultural facilities, to diversify or expand into new
production areas, and to make site improvements related to such expansion or diversification.
• Applicants must provide at least a 50 percent match of the total project cost. Any producer with
a business plan and three years of farm businesses tax forms is eligible to apply.84
• The Maine Farms for the Future program was created by Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 7, chapter 10-B, and is
designed to help farmers develop and implement a successful business plan.
• In the program’s first phase, funds may be used to hire consultants, conduct research or pay for
training; business counselors are provided.
• The program does not target beginning farmers specifically, but those who have been producing
agricultural products commercially for two years are eligible. Applicants must own their land or
have a long-term lease and the landowner must co-sign the application.85
• In 2011, the program awarded 15 Phase 1 grants; 208 farms had participated by early 2012.
82
2012 Agricultural Viability Grants Program, Conn. Dep’t of Agric. 3 (Nov. 9, 2012),
http://www.ct.gov/doag/lib/doag/marketing_files/ag_viability_application_and_eval_12.pdf.
83
See 2012 Agriculture Viability Grants Awarded, Conn. Dep’t of Agric.; 2010–2011 Ag Viability Grants, Conn. Dep’t of
Agric.; Ag Viability Grants 2009–2010, Conn. Dep’t of Agric.
84
See Farm Reinvestment Program: 2012 Grant, Conn. Dep’t of Agric. 2 (Apr. 30, 2012),
http://www.ct.gov/doag/lib/doag/marketing_files/frp_application_2012.pdf.
85
See, e.g., Appendix A - Part 1- Cover Page, Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry, Maine Farms for the
Future Program – Round 13, Me. Dep’t of Agric., Food, and Rural Res. 2, 18 (Oct. 2012),
http://www.maine.gov/agriculture/mpd/farmland/future.html.
170
»» Participants’ gross sales increased an average of 37 percent after completing the program;
»» 83 percent stated that their farm’s production had increased due to participation in the program;
»» 63 percent had entered into new marketing channels as a result of participating in the program.86
• The Massachusetts Farm Viability Enhancement Program, run by the Department of Agricultural
Resources, offers up to $25,000 for a five-year covenant, up to $50,000 for a 10-year covenant,
and up to $75,000 for a 10-year covenant on farms with at least 135 acres. To be eligible, farmers
must own at least five acres of land and have managed the land for at least three years.87
• As of 2012, 449 farms have participated in the Farm Viability Enhancement Program, which has
provided more than $15 million in grants since 1996.
• The 2012 grant round provided business plans for 15 farms; $125,000 was spent on technical assis-
tance; $925,000 was provided in direct grants. In 2012, projects included farm stand expansion,
new dairy barns, equipment purchases and livestock fencing.88
• The Farm Viability Enhancement Program was established in 2003 by 6 V.S.A. § 4710 and is
administered by the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board.
• Farm business planners who work with program participants are from partner organizations
including the University of Vermont cooperative extension, the Intervale Center, the Northeast
Organic Farming Association of Vermont, and Land for Good.
• Eligible farmers can own or lease land, should have three years of farm experience, and have
earned $10,000 or more of gross farm income in the previous year.89
• Since 2003, the program has provided assistance to 336 farms; in 2011, 40 farms were enrolled.
• Surveys conducted after the completion of the business plan and at the end of a second year dis-
play positive results. For farmers enrolled in 2010, 97 percent to 100 percent reported their finan-
cial analysis skills and business planning skills improved as a result of enrolling in the program.90
• The fund is directed by a board and administered by the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food,
and Markets.91
86
See Progress Report on the Maine Farms for the Future Program, Me. Dep’t of Agric., Food, and Rural Res.
(Mar. 1, 2012).
87
See generally Farm Viability Enhancement Program, Mass. Dep’t of Agric. Res., http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/
agr/about/divisions/fvep.html (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
88
See id.
89
See Vermont Farm Viability Enhancement Program, Vt. Housing and Conservation Bd., http://www.vhcb.org/viability.
html#brochure (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
90
See Vermont Farm Viability Program: 2011 Annual Report, Vt. Farm Viability Program (Jan. 31, 2012),
http://www.vhcb.org/pdfs/viability2011ar.pdf.
91
See Vermont Working Lands Initiative, Vermont Working Lands Enterprise Initiative 1–2,
http://www.vermontagriculture.com/news/2012/working_lands_one_pager.pdf (last visited Dec. 24, 2013).
»» Enterprise Investments provide grants between $3,000 and $15,000 to new or growing busi-
nesses and will provide business and technical assistance and infrastructure development to
producers. A 25 percent match is required.
»» Working Lands Service Provider Grants of $10,000 to $100,000 are available to nonprofits,
associations and colleges. Funds may be used by service providers to offer training, technical
assistance, needs assessments, product research, marketing assistance, market development,
business and financial planning, access to capital and to address workforce needs. A 50 percent
match is required.
»» Finally, Capital and Infrastructure Investments grants of $15,000 to $100,000 are available to
producers and nonprofit organizations including food hubs, farmers markets and shared pro-
cessing facilities for capital investments to increase operational capacity and have an impact
on their industry beyond their immediate business. Eligible activities include: hiring specialized
personnel; purchasing land or easements; paying for building and equipment costs such as
processing, storage or distribution; financing for long-term working capital; and other collabo-
rative ventures that build capacity within the supply chain or open new markets. A 50 percent
match is required.92
92
Id. at 2.
172
APPENDIX M: INSTITUTIONAL MARKETS
State Policies
Massachusetts
• The Massachusetts law that enables local governments, including school districts, to establish a
preference for local farm products is at M.G.L.c. 30B §§ 2 and 20.
• A procurement officer for any local government, including school districts, may purchase local
agricultural products directly from farm businesses without seeking quotes required under the
normal bidding process, as long as the individual purchases are less than $25,000, according to
M.G.L.c. 30B § 4(d).
Federal Policy
• The federal geographic preference option was authorized in section 4302 of the 2008 Farm Bill.
• Unprocessed agricultural products are those that maintain their inherent character. This includes
fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as items that have been frozen, peeled, cut, ground (including
meat without any additives or preservatives) and processed in a similar way.
• This preference option applies to all of the federal Child Nutrition Programs that provide meals
and snacks, including the National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, the
Department of Defense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, the Special Milk Program and the
Summer Food Service Program.
• The preference may not “unnecessarily restrict free and open competition.” The USDA has inter-
preted this to mean that the option must leave an appropriate number of qualified firms, given the
nature and size of the procurement, to compete for the contract.
• For purchases of less than $100,000, schools are not required to go through the formal bid pro-
cess, under the small purchase threshold. To ensure open competition, however, the USDA recom-
mends that purchasing agents:
»» Determine which is the most responsive and responsible bidder at the lowest price.
• The Child Nutrition Foods Programs are administered by the USDA Food and Nutrition Service.
• Approximately 200 items are available each year, including meat, fruit, vegetables, grain and
cheese products.
• In response to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-296), which aimed to
make school foods more nutritious, the USDA has made changes to the Foods Programs to reflect
the dietary guidelines for Americans.
»» The Foods Programs have increased the number of available canned, fresh, frozen and dried
fruits and vegetables; added more whole grain options such as brown rice, whole wheat flour
and whole grain pasta; use extra light sucrose syrup or slightly sweetened fruit juice in canned
fruits; reduced sodium in canned beans and vegetables; and offer low-fat meat and lean poultry
products, as well as fat-free potato wedges.93
93
USDA Foods: Healthy Choices for Our Schools, USDA 2 (May 2011),
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/USDAFoods_FactSheet_FINAL.pdf.
Composting
Connecticut
Connecticut includes composting facilities under the definition of “volume reduction plants” in Conn.
Gen. Stat. § 22a-207(5), and they are subject to the state’s policies for solid waste management
under the Regs, Conn. State Agencies §§ 22a-209-1 to 22a-209-17. These regulations apply to all
composting facilities except those that compost only leaves, and they require that a composting
facility have a solid waste permit to operate. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-208q also requires the commis-
sioner of energy and environmental protection to regulate both compost inputs by screening out
hazardous chemicals and outputs by grading compost and designating uses for each grade.94
Maine
Maine regulates composting both through general regulations applicable to all solid waste manage-
ment facilities (06-096 C.M.R. ch. 400) and through detailed regulations applicable only to compost-
ing facilities (06-096 C.M.R. ch. 410). The composting regulations exempt small facilities (how small
depends on the type of input used for composting), on-farm facilities that use leaves to compost
manure and on-farm facilities that use 70 percent of the compost they produce on-site. A compost
management plan approved by the Maine Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources is
required for on-farm composting facilities.95
Massachusetts
Massachusetts regulates composting through site assignment regulations for solid waste facilities
in 310 C.M.R. §§ 16.00–16.99. These regulations exempt small facilities — those that accept less than
20 cubic yards or 10 tons per week — and on-farm composting, provided that on-farm composting
operations comply with the Department of Agricultural Resources’ regulations and guidance. Those
regulations (330 C.M.R. §§ 25.00–25.06) establish a registration program and set basic standards,
including a requirement that contaminants be screened from composting inputs.96
New Hampshire
New Hampshire regulates composting through Composting Facility Requirements (N.H. Code Admin.
R. Annotated ENV-SW 600). In general, a composting facility cannot operate without a permit. The
composting regulations, however, exempt facilities that compost food scraps and animal manure
generated on-site, including farms. For nonexempt composting facilities, the regulations establish
rigorous screening requirements to ensure inputs are free from hazardous contaminants.97
94
For more information, go to http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?A=2709&Q=324200.
95
For more information, go to http://www.state.me.us/dep/waste/residuals/index.html.
96
For more information, go to
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/agr/about/divisions/agr-composting-program-generic.html.
97
For more information, go to http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/waste/swmb/pdrs/index.htm.
174
Rhode Island
Rhode Island includes composting facilities in its General Requirements for solid waste facilities in
Solid Waste Reg. No. 1, and has specific rules for certain designated composting facilities in Solid
Waste Reg. No. 8. Solid Waste Reg. No. 1 generally requires a license or registration in order to
operate a composting facility. Agricultural composting facilities are exempt from paying certain
fees required by the regulation but are otherwise subject to the regulations. Solid Waste Reg. No. 8
requires composting products to be tested, categorizes products by quality and contaminants, and
limits the uses of lower-quality and contaminated compost.98
Vermont
Vermont’s recent Solid Waste Management Rules include a subchapter titled Organics Management
that establishes siting and operational requirements for composting facilities. Small composting facil-
ities (how small depends on input), facilities composting only manure for soil enrichment, and several
types of on-farm composting are exempt from these requirements. For composting facilities subject
to the requirements, final composting products must meet certain criteria for contaminants.99
98
For more information, go to http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/waste/topicsol.htm.
99
For more information, go to http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/compost/main2.htm.
www.newenglandfoodpolicy.org
American Farmland Trust
this report is supported by a grant from
the Henry P. Kendall Foundation Conservation Law Foundation
Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Working Group